Huffington Post: The Petraeus Affair: Why Is There No Male Equivalent for 'Mistress'?

 

		The Petraeus Affair: Why Is There No Male Equivalent for 'Mistress'?
	Colloquial English language has no word for that -- no label we use to describe the man with whom a married woman cheats. Gigolo doesn't really cover it. Lover, perhaps, but no newspaper account would use it in a situation like this because their goal is to talk about sex without directly mentioning it. Paramour? That just sounds ridiculous.

 

Sent from my iPhone

When Is The First Lady's Debate?

I was thoroughly unimpressed by tonight's debate. I'm going to lose my Democrat card for this but I thought Romney had a better performance. I think Obama had a lot of good ideas rolling around in his head but he just couldn't get them all out in a clear, concise manner.

Furthermore, I don't think that this debate changed anyone's mind. If you were for Obama, you still are. If you were for Romney, you still are. The question for me, is whether or not any Independent's minds were swayed.

I think Romney's statements about returning programs and services to the states is a copout. His plan ignores the fact that states are already facing huge budget crises and cannot handle an unfunded mandate from the federal government. His plan also ignores the fact that members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans alike, will not allow federally funded programs and services for their constituencies to be cut.

So as usual, the devil is in the details. As my cousin suggested, lets have 1st Lady's debate. Hopefully that would have a bigger impact on the electorate.

Huffington Post: All About the Justices: Why Republicans Are Falling in Line for Akin

 

		All About the Justices: Why Republicans Are Falling in Line for Akin
	As President Bill Clinton famously said, "Democrats want to fall in love; Republicans want to fall in line." Today, for their values, their Justices and their post-Romney ambitions, Republicans are falling in line for Todd Akin.

 

Sent from my iPhone

Put Your Pee Where Your Mouth Is

I love talking about politics. I love comedy. But most of all I love comedians talking about politics. I think comedians have a unique way of pointing out things that are so ridiculous that we have to laugh because if anybody else says it you might just cry. Take for example, the issue of mandating welfare recipients to submit to drug testing. Proponents of such a measure would have you believe that most welfare recipients are defrauding the hard-working taxpayers by using their needs-based benefits for drugs and all manner of the debauchery. As one of the aforementioned hard-working taxpayers I don't like the idea of someone using my tax dollar in a way that it was not intended. Though I'm sure that some people do use part of their welfare check to abuse drugs or alcohol, the statistics do not support a law mandating drug tests to prevent it. Especially when it costs more money to implement the law than it saves. If the goal is to prevent fraud waste and abuse, perhaps we should take a closer look at Medicaid and Medicare fraud, or even those lovely earmarks that elected officials like to sneak into bills to fund bridges to nowhere. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a smokescreen. Instead of focusing on real, hard pressing issues, some in elected office would have you distracted with nonissues like the prevalence of drug abuse by welfare recipients. Daily Show “reporter”, Aasif Mandvi, recently asked Florida elected officials to submit to a drug test. The stated goal behind mandating drug tests for welfare recipients is to assure taxpayers that their money is not being used for drugs. Since these elected officials’ salaries are paid for by taxes, Aasif Mandvi asked them to submit a sample to assure the voting public that they were not abusing drugs. The hypocritical response is rather funny... And sad.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-2-2012/poor-pee-ple?xrs=share_copy

 

They Were For It, Before They Were Against It...Who's Flip Flopping Now?

Republicans reverse themselves…again. The same people that accused John Kerry of being a serial flip flopper are at it again. The hypocrisy is astounding. My new favorite news personality, Rachel Maddow, has found video evidence of the hypocrisy. The current administration has routinely tried to include the Republicans in the policymaking process, but the Republicans won't have any of that. President Obama has tried to include Republican ideas in his policy measures only to see his hopes of bipartisan agreement dashed through stonewalling and filibustering efforts in Congress - to the extent that previously held Republican notions are now viewed as heresy by the same people who proposed them in the first place. The Republicans sole mission is to get rid of Pres. Obama. They're looking for any little thing to show that President Obama is unfit to lead this nation. The interesting part though, is that everything they find, every issue they are now against, they supported before Obama mentioned it. No wonder they can't rally behind a "true conservative" to run against him. I don't think that they know what a true conservative looks like anymore since they keep changing their positions on issues. Check out the link below and see for yourself.
 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46335268#46335268

The Income Gap: Unfair, Or Are We Just Jealous?

I found the following story on the NPR iPhone App:
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/14/145213421/the-income-gap-unfair-or-are-we-just-jealous?sc=17&f=1001

The Income Gap: Unfair, Or Are We Just Jealous?
by Scott Horsley

- January 14, 2012

The widening gulf between the rich and everyone else is a growing source of tension in America.

A new survey from the Pew Research Center finds the income gap is now seen as a bigger source of conflict in the U.S. than race, age or national origin. That's why some believe the issue could matter in the presidential campaign, and others worry it could warp the national debate.

Two out of three Americans now perceive strong social conflicts over the income gap — up sharply from two years ago. Paul Taylor of the Pew Research Center has an idea what's behind the increase.

"The Occupy Wall Street movement kind of crystallized the issue: 1 versus 99. [It's] arguably the most successful slogan since 'Hell no, we won't go,' going back to the Vietnam era," he says. "[It] certainly triggered a lot of coverage about economic inequality."

Over the last three decades, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans more than doubled their share of national income, while the bottom 80 percent saw their share shrink. Taylor says majorities of Democrats, independents and even Republicans now see the income gap as a cause of friction.

"There's no question that there is rising inequality in this country, and I think those perceptions are part of the national agenda in a way that they weren't," he says. "And certainly they are in times like this, where we've had this very, very difficult economy and a lot of people are struggling."

The 'Politics Of Envy'

The rise of the issue has not been welcomed by Mitt Romney, the front-running Republican presidential candidate. Romney, who made millions as a private equity investor, has accused President Obama and others of engaging in what he calls "the bitter politics of envy."

"I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like, but the president has made this part of his campaign rally," Romney says. "We hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It's a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach. And I think it will fail."

Romney was challenged by Today Show host Matt Lauer, who asked if envy is the only reason someone might question the increasingly skewed distribution of wealth. Lauer asked if it was instead about fairness.

"I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare," Romney responded. "I think when you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the idea of 99 percent versus 1 percent, and those people who've been most successful will be in the 1 percent, you've opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of 'one nation under God.'"

Nothing Wrong With Being Rich

Even as the Pew survey found more conflict over the income gap, it did not find evidence that Americans are growing more resentful of the rich. A separate Gallup poll found Americans far more concerned with growing the economic pie rather than changing the way it's divided.

Conservatives have long argued that growth trumps inequality, and a rising tide lifts all boats, even if some are yachts and others dinghies. But Obama's top economist, Alan Krueger, gave a speech this week arguing that severe inequality can actually threaten growth, as well as hobble the "opportunity society" that Romney says he wants to promote.

"There's a cost to the economy and society if children from low-income families do not have anything close to the opportunities to develop and use their talents as the more fortunate kin from better-off families, who can attend better schools and draw on a network of family connections," he said.

Krueger argues the economy as a whole would be in better shape if income and buying power were not so concentrated among the very rich. Obama made the same case in December in Osawatomie, Kan.

"When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy — from top to bottom," he said.

Krueger notes that since World War II, income growth has tended to be strongest when it's most widespread — when rich, poor and middle-class Americans are growing together, instead of growing apart. [Copyright 2012 National Public Radio]

To learn more about the NPR iPhone app, go to http://iphone.npr.org/recommendnprnews

Sent from my iPod

Dear Congress

Dear Congress,

I want someone to explain to me the contradicting positions of American conservatives. They want to cut government spending, but want government to do something when disaster strikes. They want to deregulate, but haven't said how deregulation helps preserve consumer confidence. They want small government, but only in areas that benefit their causes. They don't like redistribution of wealth, but don't mind getting government subsidies themselves. Help me understand.

CUT THIS
Conservatives say that the President's economic policies aren't working. In all honesty, with a 9.1%unemployment rate, there is obviously a problem. They say that spending wantonly has increased the deficit while the unemployment rate continues to rise. They site these facts as proof that Obama isn't the "economist-in-chief" we elected him to be.

But no one has explained why the Congress (specifically, the House of Representatives), which has the power of the purse as per the US Constitution, didn't do anything about the deficit or deficit spending before. Where were the fiscal hawks when President Bush was racking up the debt with two wars? I didn't hear anyone complaining as loudly then as they are now about cutting spending. Where was the Tea Party then?

Social Security has come under attack. Granted, people are drawing more from it than are paying to it. That's a serious problem that needs resolution. But its called Social "Security" for a reason. People like knowing that there will be something for them in their old age regardless of the economic climate. Imagine for a moment if the Bush administration had succeeded in privatizing Social Security before the "great recession". Imagine the plight of retired, or retirement-eligible folks losing not only their 401k, but their newly privatized social security benefits. And with nothing to show for all their years of work, they would do what? Probably get on public assistance since the likelihood of going back to work for many of them would be slim. Would that not raise the financial burden on sates and municipal governments, undoing the changes made to the system? Imagine all those people from the "greatest generation" losing their homes because the social security check they were counting on to supplement their income never came. If Social Security should be private and the current income redistribution is offensive to you, then please give your social security benefit back to Uncle Sam. Withdraw your application for benefits, or don't file a claim at all. That's how I will know you are serious.

Here's an idea: those Tea Party members of congress who want to cut everything should begin by cutting their own salaries and the salaries of their staff. Show 'em you mean business.

DEREGULATION
Conservative America says they want government to stay out of their business. Well, they want "small government". They say they want federal deregulation so that economic forces can work as they textbooks say it can. But, no one has explained how the deregulation they want now is different from the deregulation that occurred under Bush? How would the deregulation and the resulting free-for-all that contributed to the financial meltdown then, be prevented now?

BIG GOVERNMENT
So, we don't want oversized government. But after 911, government increased in size exponentially. Never mind the new agencies that were created and redefined roles of the ones that existed. What about the warrant-less wire taps? Increased government scrutiny of religious groups? Is that not big government? Is that not what the conservatives say they are against? But as a nation we seemed all too willing to give up some of those freedoms for Government-provided security. Who was it that said, 'those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither'?

Look at the controversy surrounding the religious cultural center that was to be constructed in NYC. People were up in arms. Some wanted government to get involved to prevent the establishment of the center. They wanted the building designated as a historical site to prevent the imam from building the center. But, I thought we didn't want government involved in our affairs. Government involvement in this matter seemed like big government to me. Surprisingly, mayor Bloomberg felt the same way.

And what of FEMA? Its seems like FEMA is the red-headed step child in all of this. Many of those who want smaller government live in states that are prone to the type of natural and unnatural disasters that FEMA funds are used to recover from. Does the Gulf Coast and Katrina ring any bells? How about the BP oil spill? Without government regulation and involvement who would have held BP's proverbial foot to the fire to hasten the clean up? Tell me a story. How would the BP scenario have played out had there been less Government regulation?

We can't have it both ways. You want government help when it suits you, but when government needs to help others, you cry foul. When the housing bubble popped many wondered why the SEC and other government agencies didn't do anything to prevent it. Simple Answer: when you de-prioritize regulation and oversight these things tend to happen. Bernie Madoff, anyone?

GOVERNMENT HANDOUT
What's up with farm subsidies? So, some farmer lost his crop due to a drought or flood, and my Uncle Sam is supposed to pay him for the loss. At the same time, that same farmer says that government is spending too much money and taxes too much. The logic is that the subsidies keep produce prices artificially low, which is good for the country as a whole. Well, Farmer Brown, if you don't like your government hand out, give it up. Let market forces reign. If that means you take a loss and prices go up, so be it. There is no difference between a farm subsidy and a welfare check. Both payments are made to keep people from being worse off than they could be without it.

Government can't keep spending like it has. Cuts need to be made. A big portion of cuts will result in the ending of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other cuts could be made but not one person has specified where they would cut. Its always, "we have to take a scalpel to the budget" or "we still have to identify those areas". All those words to avoid saying that you don't know where to cut or don't want to say where you would cut because you don't want to piss off voters.

JUST SAY "NO"
All these fights between the Congress and the White House is like an architect and a contractor fighting over how to erect a building. Neither has a privilege of saying "no" all the time. They both have to work together to accomplish the goal. If they don't, the building doesn't get built; and we are all left looking at a big hole in the ground...kind of like our economy.

Thoughts?
Kevin Greene