Ron Paul is not dumb; he knows he is not going to win the Republican presidential nomination. So why even stay in the race? He is staying in the race in order to make vital changes to the Republican party platform.
Unlike most Republicans, Ron Paul is anti-war and a civil libertarian. He is opposed to the death penalty, the war on drugs and does not believe the government, especially the federal government, should be able to regulate marriage insisting instead that it should be up to local religious institutions.
However, Rick Santorum is currently fighting Ron Paul and telling his supporters to make sure Paul's ideas do not get on the platform. Santorum is fighting against change in the right direction; he is holding on to his outdated views and hopefully the Republican party will not allow this.
There's a reason Ron Paul polled much better than the other Republican candidates. Ron Paul believes in moving in the right direction (on social and foreign policy at least) and so he captured more of the independents and even a few of the "blue dog" Democrats who favor Democratic social policy but agree with Republican fiscal policy.
The Republicans now have a clear option ahead of them: progress and move in the right direction by fixing their platform or keep on with their oppressive social policies and hawkish foreign policy by maintaining the status quo.
Ron Paul said it himself he is trying to save the Republican party from what it has become. Obviously, they have no hope on fiscal policy but Ron Paul is at least trying to move them in the right direction on social and foreign policies.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Obama Haters
No article today just a few links for those who always "hate" on Obama. This is particularly for the people who claim he "hasn't done anything".
This is only a partial list of accomplishments of all the things he has done since taking office: http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html
Here are some more great bills passed by Democrats but blocked by the GOP (some of these really open your eyes to the fact that Republicans will block any bill that's Democrat sponsored even if it is clearly good for the country): http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/a-small-sampling-of-bills-house-dems-passed-gop-senate-blocked-last-session.html
Finally, this one is for people (like me) who thought the President folded during the debt ceiling crisis and gave in to the Republican's demands: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/paul-krugman-is-political-rookie-or-how.html
This is only a partial list of accomplishments of all the things he has done since taking office: http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html
Here are some more great bills passed by Democrats but blocked by the GOP (some of these really open your eyes to the fact that Republicans will block any bill that's Democrat sponsored even if it is clearly good for the country): http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/a-small-sampling-of-bills-house-dems-passed-gop-senate-blocked-last-session.html
Finally, this one is for people (like me) who thought the President folded during the debt ceiling crisis and gave in to the Republican's demands: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/paul-krugman-is-political-rookie-or-how.html
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Obama Takes Hard Stance on Bush Tax Cuts
Anybody could look at the economic policies over President Obama's term and easily declare them as Republican ones. The Obama administration has pretty much kept all of Bush's economic policies in place until now.
Granted, Democrats were successful in stopping many of the domestic spending cuts Republicans were looking for, but everything else seemed the same until today. Today, the White House declared that they would not under any circumstance extend tax cuts for the wealthy and that they would try to make new cuts for the middle and lower class.
President Obama has tried too long to compromise with Republicans when they have done ridiculous things such as holding the debt ceiling hostage and refusing to pass the payroll tax cuts that they had previously wanted. Democrats are tired of looking for compromise and being treated like dirt for it so they are finally saying no more.
If America wants to get the economy going again we have to allow President Obama to fix the broken system that Bush left us with. If Republicans really care about the deficit they would have ended tax cuts for the wealthy which make up the biggest individual part of the deficit.
Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative and yet they refuse to allow the rich to pay their share. They refused to pass the Buffet Rule that would have made top earners pay at least 30% (what many middle class workers are paying now).
It's time for America to wake up; the Republican party is not the party they used to be. They are an extreme party filled with policy makers who want to benefit their rich donors instead of protecting the average Americans.
President Obama has finally realized this and has finally refused to play games with them on the Bush tax cuts. We can only hope he continues to do this on other policy issues.
Granted, Democrats were successful in stopping many of the domestic spending cuts Republicans were looking for, but everything else seemed the same until today. Today, the White House declared that they would not under any circumstance extend tax cuts for the wealthy and that they would try to make new cuts for the middle and lower class.
President Obama has tried too long to compromise with Republicans when they have done ridiculous things such as holding the debt ceiling hostage and refusing to pass the payroll tax cuts that they had previously wanted. Democrats are tired of looking for compromise and being treated like dirt for it so they are finally saying no more.
If America wants to get the economy going again we have to allow President Obama to fix the broken system that Bush left us with. If Republicans really care about the deficit they would have ended tax cuts for the wealthy which make up the biggest individual part of the deficit.
Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative and yet they refuse to allow the rich to pay their share. They refused to pass the Buffet Rule that would have made top earners pay at least 30% (what many middle class workers are paying now).
It's time for America to wake up; the Republican party is not the party they used to be. They are an extreme party filled with policy makers who want to benefit their rich donors instead of protecting the average Americans.
President Obama has finally realized this and has finally refused to play games with them on the Bush tax cuts. We can only hope he continues to do this on other policy issues.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Recall Scott Walker Now
In a groundbreaking, history-making move, Democratic leaders petitioned to recall the Governor, Lt. Governor, and four republican state-senators in Wisconsin. The move came because of the Republican's harsh measures taken against the state's workers in the name of austerity.
Workers in Wisconsin are not fairing well under Governor Walker, who has repealed their rights to collective bargaining as well as equal pay laws for women. Governor Walker has declared war on the middle class by attacking workers rights and increasing taxes on the middle and lower class.
Walker also slashed funding for education across the board causing many teachers to lose their jobs. He is denying those that cannot afford private education access to better lives. By cutting funding for education, Scott Walker proved that he would do anything in the name of austerity.
Ironically, Wisconsin is already in a surplus so these austerity measures were unnecessary, but that did not stop Scott Walker from slashing funding and raising taxes on those who could not afford it. In one of the worst recessions this country has ever faced, Walker starved the economy and made the people suffer.
Thankfully, America is a democracy not a dictatorship so the people rallied against him and his unfair policies by imposing a recall election. The Republicans, clinging to their values of austerity, played many dirty tricks including having Republicans run as fake Democrats to force primaries as well as outspending the Democrats 7.5 to 1.
While the Republicans have money on their side; Democrats have the people on theirs. The Democrats managed to get many volunteers moving and getting people to vote for Tom Barrett and his Democratic allies.
If the Republicans win here it will send a message to the entire country: big money means more than grassroots support in elections and that you can force the middle class to struggle economically and get away with it. However, if the Democrats wins the message will be very different: the voice of the people prevails over the money of big corporations and that you cannot get away with repealing workers rights, cutting education, discriminating against women and increasing taxes on the poor without losing your chance to govern.
Workers in Wisconsin are not fairing well under Governor Walker, who has repealed their rights to collective bargaining as well as equal pay laws for women. Governor Walker has declared war on the middle class by attacking workers rights and increasing taxes on the middle and lower class.
Walker also slashed funding for education across the board causing many teachers to lose their jobs. He is denying those that cannot afford private education access to better lives. By cutting funding for education, Scott Walker proved that he would do anything in the name of austerity.
Ironically, Wisconsin is already in a surplus so these austerity measures were unnecessary, but that did not stop Scott Walker from slashing funding and raising taxes on those who could not afford it. In one of the worst recessions this country has ever faced, Walker starved the economy and made the people suffer.
Thankfully, America is a democracy not a dictatorship so the people rallied against him and his unfair policies by imposing a recall election. The Republicans, clinging to their values of austerity, played many dirty tricks including having Republicans run as fake Democrats to force primaries as well as outspending the Democrats 7.5 to 1.
While the Republicans have money on their side; Democrats have the people on theirs. The Democrats managed to get many volunteers moving and getting people to vote for Tom Barrett and his Democratic allies.
If the Republicans win here it will send a message to the entire country: big money means more than grassroots support in elections and that you can force the middle class to struggle economically and get away with it. However, if the Democrats wins the message will be very different: the voice of the people prevails over the money of big corporations and that you cannot get away with repealing workers rights, cutting education, discriminating against women and increasing taxes on the poor without losing your chance to govern.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Keeping Big Money Out of Politics
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Obamacare and the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is due to issue it's ruling on Obama's healthcare reform acts or "Obamacare" at the end of June and the results of the ruling can be devastating to many.
According to Reuters, there are 60,000 Americans who are currently receiving care from the Pre-Exisiting Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) that was created by President Obama. Before healthcare reform, these conditions would not be covered by health insurance companies and people would have to pay for vital, expensive healthcare services on their own.
If the Supreme Court were to overturn these reforms, thousands of Americans like Sam Lovett, who needed a $400,000 organ transplant that would not have been possible without the PCIP, are going to die. Some members of the Supreme Court may believe it is unconstitutional for government to regulate the healthcare industry, but it is more constitutional to protect our natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Mitt Romney says he would repeal Obamacare on day one, but does he not realize that there are thousands of Americans like his wife who have pre-existing conditions that healthcare companies would otherwise not pay for. Of course he does not, Mitt Romney is a millionaire who can easily afford to pay for his wife's necessary medical services. By opposing Obamacare Mitt Romney is once again catering to the wealthy who can afford treatment while punishing the middle class who cannot.
Because of the partisan nature of the court, the ruling lies in the hands of Justice Kennedy, who has ruled on both the Democratic side as well as the Republican side on many issues. Unfortunately, he has more often than not ruled on the conservative side of the issue and so Obamacare may not make it through the court.
Justice Kennedy also repeatedly used an analogy of forcing somebody to buy healthcare as forcing somebody to eat broccoli but there are two problems with this analogy. The first is that nobody is going to be forced to buy healthcare there will just be a tax penalty for those who choose not to. The constitution gives government the power to tax and spend so this is entirely within its bounds. The second problem is that there are not "broccoli emergency rooms" where somebody who does not eat broccoli can receive emergency treatment at the expense of the hospital.
Healthcare reform is necessary both to increase the access to affordable health care for average Americans as well as to protect hospitals from being stuck with the bill when patients come in who don't have health care. So the decision rests with the court now; do they want to please the conservatives -- who, by the way, previously supported healthcare reform as long as healthcare remained privatized (which it does in Obamacare) -- or do they want to protect the American people and American hospitals.
According to Reuters, there are 60,000 Americans who are currently receiving care from the Pre-Exisiting Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) that was created by President Obama. Before healthcare reform, these conditions would not be covered by health insurance companies and people would have to pay for vital, expensive healthcare services on their own.
If the Supreme Court were to overturn these reforms, thousands of Americans like Sam Lovett, who needed a $400,000 organ transplant that would not have been possible without the PCIP, are going to die. Some members of the Supreme Court may believe it is unconstitutional for government to regulate the healthcare industry, but it is more constitutional to protect our natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Mitt Romney says he would repeal Obamacare on day one, but does he not realize that there are thousands of Americans like his wife who have pre-existing conditions that healthcare companies would otherwise not pay for. Of course he does not, Mitt Romney is a millionaire who can easily afford to pay for his wife's necessary medical services. By opposing Obamacare Mitt Romney is once again catering to the wealthy who can afford treatment while punishing the middle class who cannot.
Because of the partisan nature of the court, the ruling lies in the hands of Justice Kennedy, who has ruled on both the Democratic side as well as the Republican side on many issues. Unfortunately, he has more often than not ruled on the conservative side of the issue and so Obamacare may not make it through the court.
Justice Kennedy also repeatedly used an analogy of forcing somebody to buy healthcare as forcing somebody to eat broccoli but there are two problems with this analogy. The first is that nobody is going to be forced to buy healthcare there will just be a tax penalty for those who choose not to. The constitution gives government the power to tax and spend so this is entirely within its bounds. The second problem is that there are not "broccoli emergency rooms" where somebody who does not eat broccoli can receive emergency treatment at the expense of the hospital.
Healthcare reform is necessary both to increase the access to affordable health care for average Americans as well as to protect hospitals from being stuck with the bill when patients come in who don't have health care. So the decision rests with the court now; do they want to please the conservatives -- who, by the way, previously supported healthcare reform as long as healthcare remained privatized (which it does in Obamacare) -- or do they want to protect the American people and American hospitals.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Hispanic Running Mate for Romney?
The Republican Party has never had luck getting Hispanic votes. The three candidates that would most likely be Romney's hispanic running mate are Marco Rubio, Susanna Martinez, and Brian Sandoval. The general thought is if Romney picks a Hispanic running mate then he will attract votes from Hispanics who might otherwise vote for Obama. Hopefully, they will realize he does not have their interests at heart.
Voting Republican is not a good choice for Hispanics or anybody for that matter. There are multiple Republican policies in particular that are not popular among Hispanic voters.
Republicans oppose the Dream Act which would have given illegal immigrants who attended college in the US or served in the US army a path to citizenship.
Hispanics rank education as one of their most important goals for their children. Republicans want to cut the budget for education substantially.
Additionally Hispanics probably don't agree with Republicans trying to make English the national language. The idea was ultimately rejected in the senate, but not until after it enjoyed a large Republican backing. Making English the national language is not necessary because to become a naturalized citizen you are already required to speak English.
Romney is not a good choice for Hispanics or for anyone. As I said before, Romney might gain Hispanic votes by picking a Hispanic running mate, but it would not be a substantial amount. I have confidence that all voters, hispanic or not, will look past race during this election.
GOP strategists are correct when they say that a Hispanic running mate may bring more Hispanic voters; however, the turnout would be negligible. I have confidence that Hispanics will vote on policy and principle rather than race. If these candidates are analyzed past their race they may not be popular amongst Hispanic voters. Additionally, nobody should base their vote on a presidents running mate, because in the end it is the President who has power not the vice president.
Voting Republican is not a good choice for Hispanics or anybody for that matter. There are multiple Republican policies in particular that are not popular among Hispanic voters.
Republicans oppose the Dream Act which would have given illegal immigrants who attended college in the US or served in the US army a path to citizenship.
Hispanics rank education as one of their most important goals for their children. Republicans want to cut the budget for education substantially.
Additionally Hispanics probably don't agree with Republicans trying to make English the national language. The idea was ultimately rejected in the senate, but not until after it enjoyed a large Republican backing. Making English the national language is not necessary because to become a naturalized citizen you are already required to speak English.
Romney is not a good choice for Hispanics or for anyone. As I said before, Romney might gain Hispanic votes by picking a Hispanic running mate, but it would not be a substantial amount. I have confidence that all voters, hispanic or not, will look past race during this election.
Friday, June 1, 2012
The Gay Marriage Debate
Back when Rick Santorum was still in the primary race, he directed a lot of his rhetoric against gay marriage arguing that it was no more bigoted to oppose gay marriage than it was to oppose polygamy and that he should not be called a bigot because of his stance on a social issue. Interesting how Republicans are always so fast to bring up polygamy, but if a Democrat uses interracial marriage in their defense about why traditional marriage definitions can and should be changed they refuse to acknowledge it as a legitimate parallel.
Now, this statement is not true, you are a bigot if you want to grant marriage rights to certain individuals while not allowing others to have them, but lets assume it was. If it's not bigoted to be defending a "traditional view of marriage" surely it must still be bigoted to say all gays should be put to death?
Many evangelical leaders have this opinion and are endorsing Mitt Romney. If Gov. Romney were truly not a bigot and just believed in protecting this "traditional view of marriage" he would surely distance himself by repudiating this comments, but he does not.
Who could allow a political party to openly discriminate against a group of people like this when a slight majority of Americans believe that gays should be allowed equal rights as heterosexuals? In a word, Evangelicals. Although Evangelical opinions represent a small minority of the popular opinion, they are an important part of the Republican vote and so Republicans are forced to pander to their views.
It's strange how Evangelicals will always talk about how Democrats are restricting freedom of religion, but then try to impose their own religion upon others with anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion laws. Freedom of religion does not mean your religion rules all; freedom of religion means that everybody is free to have their own faith and not abide by your religious code if they do not want to.
Whether somebody has the right to marry somebody else who they have an intimate, loving relationship with is not a subject that is open to debate; it is a civil rights issue that needs to be addressed with equality for all. Times are changing; more and more states are legalizing gay marriage and a federal appeals court recently ruled the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits gay marriages as being recognized by the federal government, as unconstitutional.
The question now becomes whether Republicans will once again take a stand vehemently on the wrong side of the debate as they did during the civil rights movement or whether they will learn from their previous mistakes about bigotry and discrimination and finally join the side to protect those who don't have the equal rights that they deserve.
Now, this statement is not true, you are a bigot if you want to grant marriage rights to certain individuals while not allowing others to have them, but lets assume it was. If it's not bigoted to be defending a "traditional view of marriage" surely it must still be bigoted to say all gays should be put to death?
Many evangelical leaders have this opinion and are endorsing Mitt Romney. If Gov. Romney were truly not a bigot and just believed in protecting this "traditional view of marriage" he would surely distance himself by repudiating this comments, but he does not.
Who could allow a political party to openly discriminate against a group of people like this when a slight majority of Americans believe that gays should be allowed equal rights as heterosexuals? In a word, Evangelicals. Although Evangelical opinions represent a small minority of the popular opinion, they are an important part of the Republican vote and so Republicans are forced to pander to their views.
It's strange how Evangelicals will always talk about how Democrats are restricting freedom of religion, but then try to impose their own religion upon others with anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion laws. Freedom of religion does not mean your religion rules all; freedom of religion means that everybody is free to have their own faith and not abide by your religious code if they do not want to.
Whether somebody has the right to marry somebody else who they have an intimate, loving relationship with is not a subject that is open to debate; it is a civil rights issue that needs to be addressed with equality for all. Times are changing; more and more states are legalizing gay marriage and a federal appeals court recently ruled the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits gay marriages as being recognized by the federal government, as unconstitutional.
The question now becomes whether Republicans will once again take a stand vehemently on the wrong side of the debate as they did during the civil rights movement or whether they will learn from their previous mistakes about bigotry and discrimination and finally join the side to protect those who don't have the equal rights that they deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)