Samantha
Samantha's JournalThis is not new news and I do believe it is worse than that
I have written several times here that the reason the Republicans want to privatize Social Security (or as Bernanke mentioned once, it can be repealed) is due to the fact the government "borrowed" the money and cannot afford to repay its debt. In order to withdraw funds from the Trust Fund account, a like amount of securities must be sold to replace the marker for those funds. In this economy, that is extremely difficult to do. Restructuring seniors retirement could be done in such a way that debt evaporates, thus cutting the overall debt Uncle Sam owes by that amount.
Additionally, the Government has borrowed from Federal Employees retirement funds. There is a law which enables them to do this. Of course, statements have been made this money will be repaid, but more cries that the Federal employees pensions are too high drown that out. Cutting the pensions would over time alleviate part of that debt.
Also, we know the U.S. Post Office has accumulated 75 years worth of funds to pay its employees benefits. I have been looking from time to time in which pocket those funds are being held to determine the total. I cannot find the pocket. It stands to reason that if Uncle would borrow against employees' pensions and Social Security, it probably could not resist dipping into the benefit funds the Post Office has accrued. Privatize that organization and eliminate that debt.
We do know in various states, governors neglected to make mandatory deposits into their employees' pension funds. When the time has come the money is needed, we hear governors saying employees' pensions are too high.
If the Government cannot afford to repay its debt, it obviously it is not going to say that, it can just "erase" a lot of it.
There is a pattern to all this and it is not pretty.
Sam
Some people cannot distinguish between Obama the man, Obama the policitian and Obama the POTUS
Those three very different dimensions of this man carry entirely different responsibilities and massive varying weights.
This is a human being who told us after winning his first election in 2008 that we would not like everything he did. During his campaign, he uttered a gazillion times he did not want to be President of the red United States, or just the blue United States, but ALL of the United States. I believe that while this was not quite pleasing to all of his base, he has followed through with that personal goal he set for himself. And that was and is his prerogative.
Although I have spoken out against some of his goals, overall I do believe he will go down in history as one of the United States greatest presidents. He deserves it.
Sam
Hey, Cat-Savvy DU'ers -- a short note about one of Nikita's kids
Sunny is in love!
?t=1393284524
How can I tell him his new love has a heart of stone?
Sam
Note to Bob Shrum: No One in Politics is Ever Inevitable
The always unpredictable Al Gore has been quietly mentioned. The man who for a long time has warned us about the perils of climate change, panned the Keystone pipeline, wrote the legislation creating the Internet for we the people, who openly assertively states corporations are not people too - that's my kind of Presidential choice. Elizabeth Warren would make a great Vice Presidential choice to run with Gore. So would O'Malley.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16080513-could-al-gore-re-emerge-as-a-presidential-candidate-in-2016
"Besides, Gore is one of those rare public figures who could compete without needing to throw a lot of money into the fight. He could also afford to take an outside-the-box approach to fundraising. In October, Gore – looking far more presidential and statesmanlike than he did in his younger days – told Bloomberg that “corporations are not persons, money is not speech, (and) big anonymous contributors should not call the shots,” in US politics.
Gore may be wealthy, but he also has populist credentials and the experience that would allow him to, at the very least, be taken seriously as a presidential contender. Gore could make a simple pitch for something like 10 million people to donate $20 apiece, and $200 million ought to be more than enough to give him a fighting chance at the nomination. Mitt Romney spent a little less than $80 million in winning the 2012 GOP nomination, CNN reported in April 2012.
Just as Gore surprised the political world in late 2002 by stating he wouldn’t seek the Democratic nomination in 2004, it would be a welcome surprise to hear him say in early 2014 that he’s not ruling out another run for the White House in 2016."
I read a couple of months ago he had quietly been approached and asked to run. And yes, it would be a welcome surprise should he choose to do so.
Sam
Very thoughtful, wonderful thread, madfloridian
I would like to share something with the hope it be helpful. It concerns the importance of allowing oneself to properly grieve.
When my father passed, I was 28. I simply could not face it. I had lost my mom when I was six so he was all-important to me. He died suddenly from a heart attack at 50. A sudden passing of a loved one leaves no time to emotionally prepare so it often is even more difficult to accept. I could not look at any pictures of my father for ten years. I was in denial.
But after some time, I found myself angry at him for leaving. It would be a lengthy reason to explain why, so I will just leave it at that. After some time, I felt ashamed for that anger as if I were feeling sorry for myself for having lost my father instead of feeling sorry for him for having passed so young.
But I was not myself for two years. The depression was deep.
I finally snapped out of it one day when I felt my daughter pulling on my skirt. She was two. I looked down and thought about how much I had neglected her and my husband in my grief over losing my father. I made a strong effort to accept my father's passing to return to my former self so I could be the loving mother and wife I had once been.
Some time later, I found out there were self-help books on the process of grieving. Some authors think there are seven; some think there are five. I purchased one and read it. To my utter amazement, that book described all of the stages I had passed through. Even the anger one was discussed. I so regretted not knowing so many books on this subject existed; I would have read one much sooner and learned so much about the process when I needed to know it.
The Five Stages of Grief (as outlined by Dr. Kubler-Ross):
Denial
Anger
Bargaining*
Depression
Acceptance
*Dr. Kubler-Ross initially outlined these steps to help patients who were facing death. She later expanded her work to simply help everyone grieving, including those who had lost very close loved ones. The Bargaining stage usually impacts individuals with a terminal illness. I did not experience that phase.
Once I realized the process of grieving is a very normal reaction to loss and all of the feelings I had experienced were natural, I knew if only I had allowed myself to grieve instead of holding back, I could have learned to cope much quicker than what I did. Now when I experience a loss, I do not hold back my grief. I let it all emerge and I think that has been very instrumental in helping me to heal.
The reason I am writing you this post is to simply let you know you are so right in saying grieving is not a weakness. It is what we do to face our tragedies and start the healing process therefrom. We never stop missing those we loved and lost, but we do learn to live with it and return to the person we once were who experienced the wholeness of life, even contentment and happiness.
Remember each day to always look around and take notice of all we love that we still have.
Happy Valentine's Day, and thank you for all your wonderful work on our site.
Sam
No, constructive criticism of President Obama is permitted
He himself invited this when he asked us, regarding issues important to us, to "make him do it." Those where his exact words.
He also said in Chicago in 2008 acknowledging his win to the huge crowd that had gathered there, words to the effect that we, the people who elected him, would not like everything he did, but he had gotten so much more from us than we would get from him. I think some people might not have paid close attention to this.
But I voted for President Obama twice, and I do not regret it. I think overall he has done a remarkable job under extremely adverse conditions. Some things he has accomplished I think are remarkable. Some things he is considering and has done I believe are appalling. I have no problem expressing my dissatisfaction, or when appropriate outrage, when I come face to face when one of these things.
Yet I still as I said above do not regret my vote. When my blood starts to boil, for instance, when I did a lot of research on the Chained CPI and realized over time what impact that would have on seniors, instead of continuing to just be outraged, I sent my info to Bernie Sanders and asked him to oppose this. So the answer is, I believe, when a politician one has supported steps out to make an objectionable move, become actively involved and express your opposition.
Also keep in mind, if we had not elected Barack Obama president, Mitt Romney would be sitting in the Oval Office, and we would be in a great deal more pain today than we are with the President.
Welcome to DU.
Sam
Well, he drank so much after his first performance
he was unable to make it thru the second night. Walked off I think during the second or third act, leaving the cast to improvise for the rest of the show. Improvise as in they lost a main character and had to ad lib....
There is a video at the link above which I encourage you to access. I believe you will truly enjoy watching Cruz perform, and I do not believe you see in any difference in his performance on stage and off.
Perhaps I should put this in a separate thread for all to enjoy??? Or just wait for a strategic moment to do so?
Sam
"All the world is a stage, And all the men and women merely players"
Ted Cruz takes his Shakespeare* too seriously. That is just another way of saying Cruz is not stupid. He is just a really, really poor actor. Someone should tell him to get off the stage.
BUT WAIT A MINUTE
After I posted this, I did a quick search and found out he does have acting experience. Take a look at this quote:
"Senator Ted Cruz is known for his acts of political theater, but the drama we’ve come to expect from him on the Senate floor may trace its origins from his days at Harvard Law School. A new profile of Cruz by Matt Viser of the Boston Globe revealed that the senator played a leading role in the drama society’s production of “The Crucible” by Arthur Miller, back in 1992.
The play, which depicts the demagoguery of the Salem Witch Trials, was written as a critique of Senator Joe McCarthy’s red-baiting tactics of the 1950’s. The character Cruz played, the self-aggrandizing Reverend Samuel Parris, may be fitting for a senator criticized for his own demagoguery."
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/life-imitates-art-cruz-the-crucible
I think he deserves a special award -- something like Worst Actor in the Political Arena.
Sam
*As You Like It.
From Inside the Beltway: Don't listen to what I say - watch what I do
Against my better judgment, I am going to make a few comments about the TPP and recent events. I have zero desire to get into any bitter battles over the literal truth of what is what. After all, we are in a political arena and the quest of discerning the truth about anything is often extremely difficult if not impossible.
President Obama is not stupid, so I do not believe he ever thought he could get Fast Track. Continuing down this thought train, why would he make seemingly positive remarks if it were not something he truly supported? Think about it. He is a Constitutional attorney, and he has to know the repercussions from implementing a piece of garbage such as this TPP Trade Agreement. Thus, we are back at the beginning, so why would he seemingly be pushing it? Perhaps because HE HAD TO - HE HAD NO POLITICAL AND/OR EXECUTIVE CHOICE.
So if either were the case, why would that be?
Scenario #1: The talks on this TPP started under George W. Bush*. There is a protocol long in place that when one is elected to the Presidency, important issues and events already in progress must be appropriately addressed. It is important that when a transfer of power happens at the Executive Level, that transfer does not create an instability in our institution. So imagine if this is the perspective from which we view this and a newly-elected President when learning of this monstrosity bluntly states he does not like the agreement and will be quashing it. One can easily predict all of the potential adverse repercussions from a move like that, so I will leave that statement as is.
Although the President of the United States, Barack Obama is also the infinite politician. His solution would be to play ball until he had to resolve the matter, and a great solution would be to allow the agreement to "die" a natural death. That is what Harry Reid is helping President Obama do.
This particular agreement may pull a "Lazarus" maneuver as time goes on, considering the level of support given to it by powerful corporations and some very wealthy players. But for now, the play is blocked! Hurray for the home team.
Scenario #2: Bill Clinton did an astounding amount of work to help Barack Obama get elected originally, and then to win re-election. I just assumed it was a down-payment toward President Obama reciprocating when Hillary ran in 2016. But considering the overall effort Bill Clinton exhibited (almost an overkill, really), I think there might have been another reason Clinton worked his posterior off for this man who had knocked his (Bill's) wife into a hairline-miss for the Oval Office: the Clinton Global Initiative. What a boon to that foundation should the TPP be implemented!
So after all that Bill Clinton did for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, how could the newly-minted President be perceived as not supporting the TPP?
I cannot say I have seen him do too much to promote this Frankenstein of a trade agreement. He has, however, put on a wonderful show.
Don't listen to what I say, watch what I do because it is all in the political game - perhaps that is the rule of thumb now worth politically pondering.
Thoughts?
Sam
Just reported on MSNBC - Iranian sanctions are now starting to be lifted
Those sanctions have caused tremendous economic damage to that country, and Iran's cooperation to date with official negotiators attempting to resolve the situation peacefully has resulted in this great news. It is a thumb in the eye to those right-wingers who have been stoking the fires for involving us in yet another war, and it appears there is hope further progress can be made.
I do give much credit to President Obama for this result. He publicly spoke out to those who advocated for war to stand up and speak out. Come out of the closet, put your hand up and your name out there in the public domain. They demurred.
He diligently worked for a peaceful resolution, and for that I am grateful.
Sam
Profile Information
Member since: 2001Number of posts: 9,314
