Rep. Carson Says Tea Party Colleagues Would Hang Blacks

In some of the most incendiary, irrational rhetoric yet from the Congressional Black Caucus, Democratic Rep. Andre Carson (left) of Indiana has said members of the conservative Tea Party want to murder blacks.

The Congressman delivered his remarks at an event the CBC held in Miami on August 22. He later said he stands by them, and tossed in The John Birch Society for good measure.

Obama 'disrespected' Israel, threw it 'under the bus,' says Romney

Obama 'disrespected' Israel, threw it 'under the bus,' says Romney
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Obama "threw Israel under the bus" and handed the Palestinians a victory even before negotiations between the parties could resume.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/162211-romney-obama-has-thrown-israel-under-the-bus
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43107432/ns/politics-decision_2012/
video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSAkzUuxKZk

Hall Mark Supreme Court Decisions

http://library.thinkquest.org/11572/cc/index.html
http://beebo.org/smackerels/supreme-court-decisions.html

Senator Bernie Sanders on Social Security

epublicans hate Social Security because it has been an extraordinary success and has done exactly what it was designed to do. It is the most successful government program in our nation's history and is enormously popular.

When Social Security was developed, 50 percent of seniors lived in poverty. Today, that number is 10 percent - still too high, but a testament to the success of Social Security.

Republicans have spent years demonizing Social Security and spreading lies about its sustainability. They want to scare Americans and build support for making drastic cuts to the program or privatizing it entirely. Their long-term goal is to end Social Security as we know it, and convert it into a private account system which will enable Wall Street to make hundreds of billions in profits.

The truth is that, today, according to the Social Security Administration, Social Security has a $2.7 trillion surplus and can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 25 years.

Further, because it is funded by the payroll tax and not the US Treasury, Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit.

Now - in a prolonged recession that has decimated the poor and middle class and pushed more Americans into poverty than at any point in modern history - we need to strengthen Social Security. That's why I, along with nine co-sponsors, have introduced the "Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act." This legislation would lift the Social Security Payroll tax cap on all income over $250,000 a year, would require millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share into the Social Security Trust Fund, and would extend the program for the next 75 years.

Join me now as a citizen co-sponsor of the Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act.

For 76 years, through good times and bad, Social Security has paid out every benefit owed to every eligible American. The most effective way to strengthen Social Security for the next 76 years is to scrap the payroll tax cap for those earning $250,000 a year or more.

Right now, someone who earns $106,800 pays the same amount of money into Social Security as billionaires like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. That is because today, all income above $106,800 is exempt from the Social Security tax. As a result, 94% of Americans pay Social Security tax on all of their income, but the wealthiest 6% do not.

That makes no sense.

The "Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act" will ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security without cutting benefits, raising the retirement age or raising taxes on the middle class.

Join me and Democracy for America in fighting to strengthen Social Security - Sign on as a citizen co-sponsor of the Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act.

Social Security is keeping tens of millions of seniors out of poverty today. I can think of no more important issue facing our country today than making sure that Social Security remains strong for generations to come.

Senator Bernie Sanders
US Senator from Vermont

Obama Stimulus and What it Did?

The Republican presidential candidates have plenty of ideas. Unfortunately, most are based in political ideology rather than facts.

What this country needs is a conversation about potential government action that actually works to stimulate the economy short-term and long-term. That isn’t what voters are getting.

At every turn candidates advocate tax cuts, adhering to the idea that they will lead to new investments and create private-sector jobs. “It’s never happened. It’s never happened in the way they fantasize about,” said Iowa State University economist David Swenson. What tax cuts absolutely do: reduce revenue to the U.S. Treasury, which exacerbates the country’s deficits and debt.

Then there’s the push for “smaller government.” The country is witnessing right now how that impacts the economy. Every month this year government jobs were lost, offsetting employment gains in other sectors. In August, 17,000 government jobs were lost. Those are real Americans losing real jobs. A new report from the Census Bureau shows there were over 200,000 fewer state and local government jobs in 2010 than 2009.

Add to that the misguided rhetoric about the impact of current government policies from candidates, including Michele Bachmann. During a recent visit to a traffic-signal plant in Waterloo, she said the company was an example of how President Barack Obama’s policies are “continuing to dig us deeper into the hole toward another recession.”

The truth: As much as 80 percent of OMJC Signal Inc.’s revenue comes from government purchases. Stimulus spending to build infrastructure, including roads, has helped the company thrive in the past few years.

Yet candidates continue to insist the stimulus package didn’t work, even though the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently reported the stimulus funded 550,000 jobs in the second quarter of 2011. It shored up state Medicaid programs so people could go to the doctor. It provided unemployment benefits so people could buy gasoline. It funded needed infrastructure projects.

According to the budget office, the programs that provided the greatest boost to the economy, as measured by GDP gains, were direct purchases made by the federal government, money sent to states for everything from housing assistance to highway construction, and direct help to individuals. This included unemployment compensation, food assistance and student aid.

What yielded the smallest benefit? Tax cuts for high-income individuals and corporations.

There is much debate over what the government should do at this moment in history. Ask one economist and you’ll get one answer. Ask another and you’ll get a different answer. But ask a politician and you’ll get an answer tainted by a political agenda.

That is not what this country needs to move forward

http://answers.yahoo.com/

Mitt Romney on Social Security he did not Call it Criminal rather the Way the Collected Sums are used for other Purposes

“Let’s look at what would happen if someone in the private sector did a similar thing. Suppose two grandparents created a trust fund, appointed a bank as trustee, and instructed the bank to invest the proceeds of the trust fund so as to provide for their grandchildren’s education. Suppose further that the bank used the proceeds for its own purposes, so that when the grandchildren turned eighteen, there was no money for them to go to college. What would happen to the bankers responsible for misusing the money? They would go to jail. But what has happened to the people responsible for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security? They keep returning to Congress every two years.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/perry-campaign-remember-when-romney-compared-social-security-criminal-enterprise_592931.html

Texas Gov. Rick Perry in Time Wrap the Palestinian - Israeli Issue

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rick-perrys-newbie-mistake-on-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/2011/09/16/gIQAvIHKYK_blog.html

Question: Do you believe there should be a Palestinian state?

“I certainly have some concerns. The first step in any peaceful negotiation for a two-state solution for the Palestinians is to recognize the right of Israel’s existence. They have to denounce terrorism in both word and deed. And they have to sit down and negotiate with Israel directly. Anything short of that is a non-starter in my opinion.”

— Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), in an interview with Time magazine, Sept. 15, 2011


Handling the Israeli-Palestinian relationship is one of the most delicate and time-consuming tasks faced by a U.S. president, as demonstrated by this week’s drama concerning the Palestinian push for recognition as a state by the United Nations. In fact, one can argue that missteps early in President Obama’s tenure have helped lead the administration to the crisis it now faces today.

That’s why Perry’s comments to Time magazine struck us as interesting and potentially revealing. How deep is his understanding of this long-running conflict?



The Facts

Perry’s statement had three parts: Palestinians must recognize Israel’s existence; they have to denounce terrorism; they have to negotiate with Israel directly. “Anything short of that is a non-starter in my opinion,” he declared.

Perry is stuck in a time warp. He’s describing a situation that existed in the 1980s, not really today. (Some people might argue about some of that, but we will explain below.)

As part of the 1993 Oslo accords, in an exchange of letters between then Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the Palestine Liberation Organization met all of these conditions nearly 20 years ago. The letters are posted on the Web site of the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

“The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security,” the letter from Arafat said. “The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations. … Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.”

In 1996, by a vote of 504 to 54, the Palestinian National Council removed the sections in the Palestinian charter that had denied Israel’s right to exist.

Ironically, on the same day Perry’s remarks to Time were published, an opinion article appeared under Perry’s name in the Jerusalem Post. The article — surely written by a more knowledgeable campaign aide — made reference to the Oslo Accords and noted that “the Palestinian leadership has dealt directly with Israel since 1993, but has refused to do so since March 2010.”

One can certainly make an argument that the Palestinians have not always lived up to ending terrorism “by deed” (though the Palestinian security forces have been much improved in recent years.) One can also argue that Palestinians need to return to direct talks.

The PLO has long recognized Israel’s existence — though not the militant group Hamas that controls the Gaza Strip, so maybe that’s what Perry meant. Israeli officials in recent years have also demanded Palestinian recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” — which Palestinians have refused — but Perry did not make that distinction.

Just to be sure, we sent Perry’s remarks to three experts on Middle East diplomacy — an Israeli, a Palestinian and an American. All three said he appeared to be remarkably uninformed.

We contacted Perry’s spokesman for an explanation but as usual he did not respond. (The Perry campaign has become a fact-free zone, not responding to Fact Checker queries, ever since Perry received Four Pinocchios for his comments on climate change.)

To some extent, we regard Perry’s remarks as a newbie mistake. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has its own diplomatic code, and it takes time and effort to understand it. Still, his comments suggest he needs a few more briefings before he opines again on the subject