HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Proud Liberal Dem » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

Proud Liberal Dem

Profile Information

Name: Mara
Gender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 AM
Number of posts: 19,921

About Me

Transgender (MTF) Social Worker/Case Manager working for State of Indiana. Huge Sci-Fi/Anime Geek and music lover. Hopeless \"political junkie\" and aspiring writer.

Journal Archives

I don't get the "overpaid" part

I never hear about teachers, librarians, or other public servants pulling down salaries or benefits ANYWHERE near Wall Street CEOs. There are some school administrators IMHO whom are pulling down some questionably high salaries (for their actual duties) but, in general, the outrage against public employees and their salaries/benefits is somewhat of a mystery to me. I've worked for my state in child protection services for nearly 10 years and am only pushing (close to) $40K and I've been all but priced out of anything but a high deductible health insurance plan yet some Wall Street CEOs are earning millions of dollars and public employees are the ones whose salaries/benefits people are getting upset over and governors in states across the nation are trying to cut in order to balance their budgets.



BTW did you read about an article that somebody put up last week (I think) that was saying that some states actually allow businesses to keep some tax revenues paid?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Apr 24, 2012, 05:12 PM (0 replies)

The GOP campaign (as I believe was telegraphed several months ago)

is to point out what President Obama campaigned for in 2008, and then accuse him of not following through. Of course, it's going to be hard for them IMHO to make these kind of hypocritical claims when either they have been doing this sort of thing for years and will be doing it again if Romney gets elected or they have been one of the biggest and most significant obstacle in getting things President Obama passed by Congress and signed into law. I guess they must be hoping that people haven't been paying attention.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:44 AM (1 replies)

Under the best circumstances

President Obama, particularly with a more moderate/progressive Congress, will be able and willing to push some decent moderate/left-of-center policies and, most importantly, SIGN THEM INTO LAW!

Under the worst circumstances, he will be able to block reactionary and regressive Republican Tea Party legislation from becoming law. He will, as others have pointed out, will be able to nominate SCOTUS replacements if any die/retire over the next 4 years, maybe not solidly ideologically liberals but some solid moderate/left-of-center justices whom will serve as counterweights against the more reactionary members of the court (i.e. Scalia, Thomas, et. al). President Obama will also still have significant control of the Federal Government and its regulatory agencies.

Until we can elect a much more solidly progressive Congress and/or the Republicans sober up and start acting like sane and rational beings again and refuse to stop obsessively pandering to the Pat Robertson/Fox News/hate radio crowds, the prospects for FDR/LBJ advancement of progressive policies seems somewhat limited at the Federal level, unfortunately, but handing election after election to the Republicans, particularly since they've become so increasingly radicalized, is inestimably worse by any measure IMHO.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:38 AM (1 replies)

I'm so tired

of "Johnny-come-lately" Republicans denouncing what most of us view as the extremism running rampant in today's GOP Tea Party. Huntsman was a little better than most of the Republican candidates during the primary but in the end he still endorsed practically the entire GOP Tea Party agenda in his futile attempt to win the GOP nomination, even muddying his previous unapologetic defense of his belief in global warming. Oh, yes, of course, he DID ultimately end up endorsing Mitt for POTUS.

It would be refreshing to (once again) see some elected Republicans trying to work with Democrats while they are still elected (in office) and able to actually DO something and make a difference instead of waiting to turn their barrels on them until they are out of office and, ultimately, powerless to really do anything, sometimes at even the expense of countless lives as what happened with Colin Powell and Iraq. Had Powell stood up to Bush and spoke out about the folly that Bush/Cheney were going to be getting us into in Iraq and the flimsy evidence they were using to get us to invade/occupy it, I believe that it might've slowed and/or stopped the rush to war that was proceeding apace at this time. He has bloodstains on his hand that he will never IMHO be able to get rid of by keeping his mouth shut and delivering evidence to the UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL that he KNEW to be unreliable and/or false.

My message to Republicans is this: If you don't like the extremist things your party is doing and putting in their platform planks, do something about it! Speak out! Vote against filibusters! Agree to work with Democrats on issues! Otherwise, if you keep your mouths shut, if you join them in their filibusters in the Senate, etc., then you are supporting/enabling the extremists!!!
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:04 AM (3 replies)

Wow

Somebody (besides us) cared to notice- after a decade or more? Who did they think the Sunday morning shows were having on their programs? Representatives from the Sierra Club? Senator Bernie Sanders? Ralph Nader? Michael Moore? Hell, news programs everywhere always seem to have "Tea Party" people on their shows to comment on things even though they're not even their own political party. *smfh*
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Fri Apr 20, 2012, 08:01 AM (0 replies)

*ugh*

with friends like these.................

Wasn't the jobs estimate on this project overestimated? Nobody can wait for the EPA to finish their environmental review? The environmental consequences of the pipeline and the people whom reside around it will be there LONG after the influx of jobs (which are mostly temporary) are gone and, as we know, the oil and gas companies always seem to be having *problems* with their pipelines, refineries, etc. The pipeline will also have no discernible effect on gas prices as the oil won't be mandated to be sold here in the US unless, as another poster pointed out, we build a new refinery here and Congress makes it so (ha-ha). There *should* be nothing wrong with asking them to wait until the EPA finishes their review and determines whether or not the pipeline is going to be harmful to the environment. I know, of course, Republican Ferengi Alliance doesn't care one wit about the environment and would gut the Earth from the inside out if profit could be had but any self-respecting Democrat should know better IMHO.


It may be "popular" project but that doesn't make it good.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Fri Apr 20, 2012, 07:52 AM (0 replies)

Couldn't agree more

The problem is that there will be a certain segment of the population whose lives have not significantly improved during the last 4 years and whom will somehow believe that that is President Obama's fault despite the actual complexities and nuances of the situation and will vote for somebody "different" thinking (hoping) that they will do a better job somehow- sort of like what happened in 2010. President Obama will have to work hard to show how everything he has done has benefited everybody in some way and how disastrous the policies that the GOP plans to implement under a R.MONEY "autopen" Presidency would be to the economic recovery and the well-being of middle class voters in general. I think that, given that the Republicans are not offering anything other than failed Bush economic policies (or worse), it should not be an incredibly hard case to make as long as most people still hold Bush accountable for the state of the economy that President Obama inherited. President Obama needs to also make the case that Republican obstructionism is largely to blame for more not getting more done in Congress, which shouldn't be too hard of a case to make either. I don't quite understand where the "magical thinking" that R.MONEY would be "better" for the economy comes from- though, I guess, the default assumption in our society is that businessmen are somehow better equipped to manage the economy than anybody else despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Fri Apr 20, 2012, 06:50 AM (0 replies)

I see your point

*ugh*

Hopefully, though, President Obama will be able to remind people that the Republicans are the ones whom will clearly be at fault here since they are breaking the debt they negotiated, supposedly in good faith to keep the govt going.

Man, I f*****g hate Republican Congresscritters right now!
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Apr 19, 2012, 06:42 AM (0 replies)

R.MONEY!

Completely tasteless comment IMHO. So was Ann's assertion that it's his (Romney's) "turn" to be POTUS. This is the kind of "entitlement reform" that we REALLY need to have in this country IMHO.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Wed Apr 18, 2012, 12:47 PM (0 replies)

and yet

they go on and on about Obama "not leading" or "leading from behind"?



Romney is Norquist's "auto-pen" candidate and it sounds like most Republicans understand that, if they control both the House and Senate, they will expect him to sign whatever they send to him, no questions asked. I do wonder what "little things" they would be willing to let him go his own way on. I can't imagine much.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Wed Apr 18, 2012, 12:44 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »