Source:VOA News- Gad Levanon, from The Conference Board.
"Yet more signs of an improving job market. The U.S. Labor Department says employers added 215,000 jobs last month. That’s the third consecutive month of job gains above 200,000 following weaker than expected job growth earlier in the year. While the unemployment rate held steady at 5.3 percent, analysts say the July job gains increase pressure on the Federal Reserve to start raising interest rates soon. Mil Arcega has more. Originally published at:VOA News."
The fact that the Federal Reserve is considering raising interest rates, tells me as a non-economist that the American economy is starting to do well. That people are going back to work, that their incomes are rising and spending money.
The Fed, has kept interest rates at practically nothing since 2008 when the Great Recession started, because the economy for most of this period was pretty weak. 2010 and 2014 would be exceptions to this, but by in large economic growth has been fairly weak since the Great Recession even with job growth being steady and solid since 2010. Which tells me we can forget about another recession at least in the short-term.
Congress, has lately has started to become helpful with the economy. They passed another short-term extension to the highway program. The Senate, passed a a six-year highway bill last week that is fully paid for. The House, is going to take up that bill and hopefully pass their own bill when Congress comes back from recess in September. So we're starting to see some real healthy signs with the economy.
Even though the economy actually shrunk in the first quarter this year, the economy by in-large is ready to do well and hopefully take off again. And do well for the rest of 2015 and hopefully take off next year.
Kids going back to school in September so there will be a lot of back to school sells for the next couple of months. As well as this being August and Americans still vacationing. And then once we get through September and October we're into the holiday season. And then you may actually see the Fed raise interest rates.
So I believe there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about the American economy right now. And with a healthy economy would also mean the budget deficit will continue to fall and we'll see more investment in America as a result.
You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.
I don’t quote Margaret Thatcher very often, because I don’t agree with her on much. But one good line that she has that is very true and cuts through all the, lets say bull, is that, “the problem with socialism, is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” That is the problem with Greece right now. They live in a society where they expect their government to do things for them that their government can’t afford to do for them. Socialism, has its place at least in every democratic developed society. But the only way socialism can work and benefit people, is to have a strong functioning economy. Where most of the workforce is employed and making a good living.
And to quote Milton Friedman, who I probably agree with more than Maggie Thatcher, “there’s so such thing as a free lunch.” Socialism is not free. Everything that government does for, or to its people, comes with a price. And depending on how much government does for society, that price can be fairly steep. When your government spends half of the revenue that the economy brings in and you have a twenty-five percent unemployment rate that Greece has, you’re going to have high deficits every year and as a result, you’re going to pile up high debt. Which is what is going on in Greece right now. Greece, reminds on New York City in the mid 1970s and Detroit now and in the last ten years. They’re over-promised their people. And when you’re economy goes down, you can no longer afford the generous benefits that you’ve promised your people.
What the European Union is telling the Hellenic Republic of Greece and especially Germany, perhaps the only healthy large state in Europe now, economically, is that they’re no longer going to subsidize an economy and economic system that is failing. If Greece wants the EU to continue to help them and bail them out, the Hellenic Government in Greece is going to have to get their costs and debt down. And that means moving people off of Welfare and putting them to work. And expecting more Greeks to be able to take care of themselves. And not be able to live off of taxpayers and other European taxpayers indefinitely. That Greece, needs to go back to work and get their economy going.
What Greece is saying, at least a majority of their voters, is that they are not ready to give up their democratic socialism. Even if it means they’ll be able to go back to work and take care of themselves. That why should they have to work when they can be taken care of their government indefinitely. And as a result, they’re probably going to be on their own and without the help of Europe. Because European taxpayers are no longer going to be forced to subsidize a failing economy and failing economic system that Greece has. And as a result the tough times that Greece is going through right now, are just getting started.
The so-called conservative economist in this piece, said something that is simply false and perhaps even insulting to minimum wage workers, that I have to correct, or I don’t think I would be doing my job. He said that if you force employers to pay minimum wage workers more than they are worth, that will cost jobs, because employers would find robots to replace those employees. Well, if you’re a cashier at a fast food restaurant, or retailer, or grocery store, you’re an essential employee. Why, because without those employees, those business’s couldn’t stay in business. No one has yet to invent a robot that can do the job of a fast food cashier, or cook. These restaurants have to have those employees in order to stay in business.
So this idea that these positions are only worth the bare minimum, or even less than that for people who believe the minimum wage shouldn’t even exist, is simply not true. Because without these employees, these business’s couldn’t operate and serve their customers. So given all this minimum wage workers are simply underpaid, because their employers have to have them in order to stay in business. And not only do these employers get away with underpaying their employees, but they are able to pass the cost of living of their employees, that don’t cover at all in many cases other than the minimum wage, onto hard-working middle class taxpayers. Who not only struggle to cover their own cost of living, but have to cover at least part of the cost of living of minimum wage workers. Because employers simply underpay and under benefit their essential workers.
One thing that I agree with Democratic Socialist Senator and Democratic Party presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on and I you’re familiar with my blogging, you know it’s not a long list, but he’s said that if the Federal minimum wage kept up with inflation from where it was in 1968, it would be over twelve bucks an hour right now. So-called Conservatives and Libertarians, like to say that the market should decide what people are worth. But the market doesn’t decide that, employers do. Employers are only part of the market. And the Federal Government shouldn’t decide what everyone is worth either.
But employers shouldn’t be able to pass their cost of doing business and their employees compensation on to the backs of hard-working middle class workers. That money should go from the employer to their employees. With a twelve dollar an hour minimum wage. Along with having employers pay their share in payroll taxes to cover public assistance programs. Instead of workers having to pay for all of that themselves.
Source:VOA News- John Cornyn (Republican, Texas) Assistant Minority Leader.
"Clues could emerge this week whether America's politically-divided Congress will approve funds requested by President Barack Obama to address a surge of immigrants illegally crossing the southwestern U.S. border. VOA's Michael Bowman reports, Obama wants nearly $4 billion to hold and more quickly process tens of thousands of children arriving primarily from Central America, and to boost federal resources at America's long border with Mexico."
At some point Congressional Republicans are going to have to decide if they want to solve the Texas border crisis, or keep it going to use it against President Obama and use it as an issue during an election year as part of their grand scheme to add to their House majority and win back the Senate. They can't have it both ways because if the crisis is actually resolved, then their goes a political issue for them. But if they keep it alive then they can claim that "President Obama is not enforcing immigration law and securing the border".
Take the Tea Party out of the equation in Congress and this is a fairly easy issue to resolve. Texas Governor Rick Perry calls up the Texas National Guard to secure the border and prevent violence from happening down there and to prevent further smugglers from entering the country. Governor Perry says he wants to do this, but so far has failed to act and has instead backed conspiracy theories that "President Obama not only caused the situation down there, but did it on purpose".
Again without the Tea Party perhaps Congress comes together and passes a bill for the extra funding to deal with the illegal immigrants at the border last week. Because the House and Senate would've acted responsibly and saw the crisis down there and decided we need to do something about this. Doesn't mean they would've taken the Obama Administration's bill as written. Perhaps they would've amended it, but they would've passed something real that the President probably signs.
You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.
Former U.S. Senator and Representative Olympia Snowe who served a total of thirty-four years in Congress is exactly what the Republican Party needs right now. Because she believes in both economic and personal freedom. And she knows how to govern which is something the Tea Party doesn't even seem to be interested in Congress, or not capable of doing, or a combination of both. Ronald Reagan was no moderate, but he knew how to govern and is a political hero of Senator Snowe.
Olympia Snowe is as Northeastern Republican as a Northeastern Republican can get as you might of noticed in her accent. She represented Maine in Congress for thirty-four years. That is the wing of the Republican Party and I believe the true conservative wing of the party. Along with the libertarian-right in the West because they are truly anti-big government as it relates to economic and social issues And Northeastern Republicans are dying off. And for the GOP to be a governing party again they need more Northeastern Republicans and Conservative Libertarians to make that happen.
Secretary Hagel's proposed cuts in the defense budget address activities that the United States can no longer afford and no longer needs to be doing. This is not about making the United States weaker when it comes to national security and not being able to successfully deal with any threat in the world whether it is North Korea or international terrorism or being able to deal with humanitarian crisies that come up when authoritarian states murder and brutalize their own people.
“It’s The Economy Stupid!” President Obama should spend eighty to ninety percent of the State of the Union speech on the economy and this is what Democrats would do to jumpstart economic and job growth that benefits everyone. Including things like more education and job training for low-skilled workers and the long-term unemployed and making work pay more than not working. With a minimum wage increase to the point that a worker could make more with a job like that than not working. A new national infrastructure plan, things that in past at least garnered bipartisan support. There are a lot of good things that we could do for the economy right now that at least in the past not only brought bipartisan support in Congress, but good ideas from both Democrats and Republicans. And these are the things that President Obama should try to move Congress on.
Source:VOA News- Washington political analyst Thomas Mann.
"2014 will be a busy political year in the United States. President Barack Obama will outline his policy priorities when he delivers his State of the Union address on January 28. In November, voters will head to the polls to elect a new Congress, an outcome with potentially enormous political stakes for the president, as well as for lawmakers from both major political parties. VOA national correspondent Jim Malone has a political preview from Washington."
"Voice of America (VOA) is the state-owned international radio broadcaster of the United States. It is the largest[4] and oldest U.S.-funded international broadcaster.[5][6] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 47 languages which it distributes to affiliate stations around the globe. It is primarily viewed by a non-American audience.
VOA was established in 1942,[7] and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103–415)[8] was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.
VOA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent agency of the U.S. government.[9] Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. In 2016, VOA broadcast an estimated 1,800 hours of radio and TV programming each week to approximately 236.6 million people worldwide with about 1,050 employees and a taxpayer-funded annual budget of US$218.5 million.[2][3]
While some foreign audiences[which?] have a positive view of VOA,[10][11] others[which?] consider it to be a form of propaganda."
What President Obama and Democrats need to do is to switch the national political focus to the economy. On issues like unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, a minimum wage increase, the income gap, infrastructure investment, energy, immigration to use as examples. And all of these issues have something to do with the American economy. Manufacturing would be another example all things that create American jobs in America. And then they need to have an agenda that can move people to supporting them.
House Democrats as well as the President already have this and speak to these issues on a regular basis. Democrats do this and 2014 is not about ObamaCare because people are now getting health insurance and not losing it. And enjoying the benefits of their health insurance and we are starting to see sings of that. The 2014 mid-terms could be very successful for them and they’ll be able to at least hold on to the Senate and perhaps even make gains in the House as well.
If 2014 is basically nothing but ObamaCare and President Obama’s popularity rating continues to sag, or stays roughly flat then Republicans will probably eat up Democrats at the elections. And Democrats will struggle just to recruit good candidates and raise enough funds to protect vulnerable incumbents. And the Republican Party will have huge year adding to their House majority. And probably winning back the Senate which is what Democrats need to stop most of all.
You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.
Source:VOA News- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky)
"The U.S. Congress gets back to work this week after a holiday break. As VOA's Michael Bowman reports, whether to restore jobless benefits for more than one million long-term unemployed Americans will be among the first items considered in the Democratic-led Senate."
"Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is the state-owned international radio broadcaster of the United States of America. It is the largest[3] and oldest U.S.-funded international broadcaster.[4][5] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 48 languages[6] which it distributes to affiliate stations around the globe. It is primarily viewed by a non-American audience.
VOA was established in 1942,[7] and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103–415)[8] was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.
VOA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent agency of the U.S. government.[9] Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. In 2016, VOA broadcast an estimated 1,800 hours of radio and TV programming each week to approximately 236.6 million people worldwide with about 1,050 employees and a taxpayer-funded annual budget of US$218.5 million.[10][11]
While Voice of America is seen by some foreign listeners as having a positive impact,[12][13] others consider it to be a form of propaganda and a mouthpiece for the US government.["
Source:VOA News- an ex-inmate who now works at this prison as a freeman.
“An innovative program in the United States is giving man and beast a second chance at life. VOA’s Julie Taboh takes us to a prison farm in the state of Virginia where inmates are gaining valuable job skills as they learn to care for retired racehorses, that in turn receive attention and a well maintained facility.”
“Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is the state-owned international radio broadcaster of the United States of America. It is the largest[3] and oldest U.S.-funded international broadcaster.[4][5] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 47 languages which it distributes to affiliate stations around the globe. It is primarily viewed by a non-American audience.
VOA was established in 1942,[6] and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103–415)[7] was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.
VOA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent agency of the U.S. government.[8] Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. In 2016, VOA broadcast an estimated 1,800 hours of radio and TV programming each week to approximately 236.6 million people worldwide with about 1,050 employees and a taxpayer-funded annual budget of US$218.5 million.[9][10]
Voice of America is generally viewed as positive from many foreign listeners,[11][12] while a smaller listening percentage consider it to be a form of propaganda.”
This is exactly what prison inmates in general population who want to build their lives and become productive in life should be doing, which is working. But working in a field with the skills needed so they not only have good jobs in prison, but also now have the right job skills and job experience needed to get themselves a good job once they leave prison. And not need to come back to prison because now they have the skills they need to do well in life legally.
This is a much taxpayer investment than to lockup inmates all day except for their meals and yard time and perhaps doing a few chores, that is for inmates who are in general population, where all they learn there is how to become better criminals.
"The number of U.S. troops who remain in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of NATO forces in 2014 depends largely on what the Loya Jirga, or gathering of tribal elders, decides in the coming days when it reviews a draft security agreement between the Afghan and U.S. governments. An Afghan government spokesman said the two sides have agreed to allow home raids by U.S. troops if President Barack Obama acknowledges mistakes by the U.S. military in Afghanistan. The US says it has not agreed to this, and that Washington has its own conditions. VOA Pentagon correspondent Luis Ramirez reports from the Pentagon."
"Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is the state-owned news network and international radio broadcaster of the United States of America. It is the largest[3] and oldest of the U.S.–funded international broadcasters.[4][5] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 48 languages,[6] which it distributes to affiliate stations around the world. Its targeted and primary audience is non-American...
The only thing that American troops in conjunction with NATO should be doing right now is helping to train and develop the Afghan military so Afghanistan can defend itself from domestic and foreign invaders including the Taliban and other terrorists groups. We’ve been there twelve years and have our own problems back at home economically and financially. That these wars being put on the national credit card have played a big role in. As well as security interests in other places that we need to address. And we can’t afford to occupy other countries indefinitely. So we should be and are working to develop the Afghan military and central government so they can govern themselves. As far as American troops accused of criminal acts, they should be tried in America, just as long as they are held accountable. And not given the message that they aren’t accountable under law.
You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.
You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.
With Socialists making a comeback in France, Greek Socialists now see an opportunity to throw their wait around in Greece. A country, thats buried in debt, making the American debt look like peanuts. Thats in the process of being bailed out by the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. Which is being led by Germany right now that has a Conservative led government. If Greece makes strict austerity measures, the Hellenic Republic of Greece, is essentially a Socialist State, where their welfare state is very popular, so making steep cuts in their welfare state, is not very popular. As their current government is finding out and as we've seen from the protests there.
And why Greece is headed for new Parliamentary elections. To hopefully for them, to form a new government. That can get its economy going again and get its debt and deficit under control. The main two political parties in Greece, are the Socialist Party of course and the New Republic Party. Which would be like the Conservative Party in Britain. The Socialists obviously being against austerity and the Republicans will try to push it. If the Greeks don't want to have to accept the demands of the European Union in resolving its debt and fixing its economy, as condition of receiving a bail out from European taxpayers, then they should fix their own problems. Resolve its own crisis.
And the Greek people should make a decision. Do they want the Socialists, or the Republicans to do this and give them the power to do it. But I don't see the European Union, even with the Socialists now in power in France, the 2nd largest State in the EU, continuing to give money to a country that continues to spend their money without serious reforms. If they don't want to meet the demands of the EU, especially being run by Conservatives, they should elect a Socialist Government to resolve their own problems. Otherwise elect a Conservative Government and meet the demands of the EU, or negotiate new conditions.
What Greece is going through right now, is similar to what America is going through. Where the countries are divided down the line. And doesn't like either party enough, to give them enough power to run the country. So they shift back in fourth. In America, between Democrats and Republicans. In Greece between Republicans and Socialists. And only the people of these countries can figure these things out for themselves.
I believe at least a majority of the country supports these protests on Wall Street all across the political spectrum. Wall Street is not very popular with any political party right now, except for maybe the Libertarian Party and Tea Party. That's why we are seeing large protests all across the country against Wall Street and even corporate America to a certain extent. I wish these protests would reach Congress as well, both in the House and Senate. To get them to start moving an legislating and even coming together.
Occupying Congress and the members who are bought by Wall Street, at least in too many cases, would make more sense, than to simply try to occupy buildings where a lot of investing is done. I mean if this was a real occupy movement Left or Right and this time it is certainly coming the Left, if not Far-Left, you go where the money is so to speak. And occupy the people who take the money from the business's and investors you are say are destroying the American middle class. I know that sounds like commonsense and what does that have to do with American politics, probably nothing, but something to think about.
And hopefully OWS will at some point, with a 13% approval rating of Congress and with the people who officially who approve of Congress either dead, living in Mongolia, or in a coma, because who could in their right mind who is familiar with our government, actually approve of the job that the U.S. House and Senate are doing right now. There's plenty incentive for them to do that, if they have the guts to take on their political bases. 468 members of Congress between the House and Senate are up for reelection in 2012.
And if 2012 is another anti-incumbent election, then a lot of those members in both parties could be looking for new jobs after election night. Seriously, the scariest thought for any career politician, perhaps especially someone in Congress, is looking for a new job, Which is why pissed off Americans should be scaring the hell out of them right now. But right now they are focused on Wall Street so I'll focus there. What these protesters have in common is that they are independent. Meaning they aren't Democrats or Republicans in a lot of cases.
Not one national organization is running these protests and putting them together. But a bunch of different political organizations perhaps working together. And there's also political diversity within this movement. Socialists, Libertarians and some Liberals are all part of this movement, perhaps even some true Conservatives, who are fed up with bailouts corporate capitalism and want to see change in our economic system.A diverse somewhat American melting pot of political philosophy. Who have found at least one issue to not try to beat the heads of people they normally don't agree with.
The political diversity in this movement is positive for them in this sense, it indicates that there's broad support for it. That there's not one political party behind it and that the country wants to see real change in our country and our economic system. But it's a problem as well, because there isn't a consensus in what change and reform should look like. Conservatives and libertarians would like to see government less involved with our economic system spending less and downsizing and less regulation and no more bailouts and tax less. Socialists obviously are the complete opposite of that and perhaps would like to nationalize some industries, especially banking and health care.
Liberals would like to see reform with our entitlements, cutting the deficit and debt, infrastructure investment, tax cuts for the middle class, expand free rrade. And bring our foreign troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq and other places. There's significant support for what Conservatives, Libertarians and Liberals want to do. Socialists have the most ambitious agenda of everyone, perhaps put together. Having a political coalition of LIberals, Libertarians, Conservatives and Socialists is not an odd couple. More like a melting pot put into a big stew, that makes people want to vomit after eating it.
Socialists want to return America to the 1950s as far as tax policy. Tax Rates starting at 25% and going up to 90% and people like socialist economist Richard Wolfe have been very upfront about that. As well as nationalizing our healthcare system, nationalizing our higher education system. With the Federal Government now paying for everyone to go to college at taxpayer expense. As well as other things. If you think America has a big government now, put Socialists in charge and this government would look like a midget that is shrinking in comparison to what they want to do.
There's potential for a movement here as being against something, but that's the easy part. The question is what do you do instead, what do you and what do you replace it with. And all of these political factions have their own agendas that they would like to see pass. This is not a governing coalition, but more like a protest coalition similar to what the Ross Perot movement of the 1990s. So I don't see a consensus right now in what to do instead after the partnership between Wall Street and the Federal Government is broken up.
And that can only happen with either getting private money out of federal politics. Can't be done without a constitutional amendment, because the Supreme Court would throw it out. The only other alternative I see is full- disclosure which is very difficult to pass. Because it would require public officials to release to the public who they deal with and how much money they receive from them. Asking a career politician to release their political contributors, is like asking an obese food addict to give up eating cold turkey for a week straight without supervision. Good luck with that and let me know how it works out.
Until there's a movement that has broad support in not only what its against, but what they want to instead and can get elected and reelected and puts proposals on the table that becomes law, We are stuck where we are in gridlock, with a do nothing Congress with its first eye always on the next election and how to get their base to the polls and votes for them. But look at the bright side, when things aren't going well for you and you are in trouble, you'll always have Congress to make fun of and say, "at least I'm not as bad as those people and know how to get my work done".
Justice David Souter was considered by then President George H.W. Bush to be the next conservative Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Ha! He was the best mistake that President Bush could have made, in my opinion as a liberal, because he was the opposite of what President Bush had in mind when he appointed him to the bench. President Bush still gets flack from right-wingers today about the Souter nomination, about everything from civil rights, labor rights, environmental protection, to choice, civil liberties, keeping our streets safe, to protecting speech, to keeping America a republic rather then a theocracy, or to defending the U.S. Constitution. Justice Souter was there defending the values that some Americans take for granted.
So how should President Obama fill the seat that Justice Souter will leave behind. For one, he should find someone who has values similar to those of Justice Souter, believing in the U.S. Constitution and America and defending it every day and every minute he/she is on the Supreme Court. I realize that African-Americans have had two appointments, Jewish-Americans have had two appointments, Italian-Americans have had two appointments, women have had two appointments, and now that Latino Americans represent 12.5% of the American population, you can make the case that their time has come as well. But it would be an insult to Latino Americans as well as America as a whole to nominate someone to the Supreme Court who is not qualified regardless of their racial or ethnic background. The idea is to nominate the best person for the job and someone who represents your values the best. Then, if that person is Latino, great, but that should not be the primary standard for nomination.
So what am I getting at? Well, a couple of things. I'm not a lawyer (in case you missed the memo), but the job of any Justice is to interpret laws, not write them, and not to legislate from the bench. Legislating is the job of elected legislators (or lobbyists). Justices are supposed to judge the constitutionality of laws and what they mean, not how they should have been written. Democrats control the White House and Senate, so they get to decide who is appointed to the bench and who gets confirmed. Liberals believe, and I'm one of them, that it's time for an appointment that we like, not a centrist, especially since President W. Bush got exactly who he wanted on the Supreme Court in John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But I want a real liberal, not a social democrat but someone who understands the real world and the U.S. Constitution and doesn't try to make it up as he goes along.
I'm not a huge fan of Judge Sonia Sotomayor and probably would not have appointed her, but judging from her professional background, she appears to have liberal tendencies, which is what you want if you are a Democrat appointing someone to the Supreme Court, but she also has a reputation as a tough prosecutor, which tells me she's not too far to the left. Her ruling in the Connecticut firefighters case, and especially her short ruling to explain her decision, is troubling to me as a liberal who believes in equal rights for all, not just for some. But I'm not going to use one case to bring her down, especially when her legal record looks very good on the whole, which is why I believe she should and will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
%20-%20Google%20Search.png)
