OBOF TYMHM & MORE Vol 15 - No 20

THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)

YEAR ONE

YEAR TWO

YEAR THREE

YEAR FOUR

YEAR FIVE

 

OBOF YEAR FIVE INDEX
OBOF TYMHM	Jan. 07, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 1	Jan. 19, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 2	Feb.  03, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 3	Feb.  23, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 4	Mar.  02, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 5	Mar.  06, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 6	Mar.  13, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 7	Mar.   23, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 8	Mar.  28,  2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 9	Apr.  13,  2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 10	May  02,  2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 11	May  09,  2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 12	May  19, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 13	May  26, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 14	May  29, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 15	July   28, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 16	Sept.  15, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 17	Sept.  20, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 18	Sept.  27, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 19	Oct.   07, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 20	Oct.  13, 2015

 

Agenda

1.  FROM  FLOYD

The Democratic Presidential Debate.

 

2.  Bernie for President

Immediately After the Debate

 

3.  Bernie Sanders: ‘Don’t be surprised if we do well with a number of Republicans’

4.  Community viewpoint:

Why Social Security is in Trouble

 

 

 

FROM  FLOYD

The Democratic Presidential Debate.

 

Well, the Democratic Presidential Debate was certainly different than what you have seen when the Republicans performed their circus.  Actually, in the true meaning of "debate," this was not a debate, but a discussion of various view points on various subjects.

 

It was a discussion of the problems of our country, and how each would address those problems as President.  There wasn't one dig at one another and in fact, there was some supporting of each other.  That comes to mind when Bernie set the country straight about using e-mails as part of the Republican Campaign tactics.

 

As far as winners and losers are concerned, I don't think there was one that really stood out.  I feel that Hillary and Bernie both came out very good.  Bernie had a real good interview after the close of the debate.  With regard to the other three, I felt that Martin O'Malley did well.  I was not at all impressed with Webb or Chafee.

 

Of course, I am a Sanders man and I was very pleased with his performance.  As soon as he left the stage, he sent an e-mail to all his supporters.  I am enclosing it here. 

 

First though, I want to point out that when the Republicans had there circus, all major networks carried it.  Not one media carried this tonight except, of course, CNN who sponsored the debate.  Those billionaire Republicans really control anything they want to.  We have got to get them out of this.  The Republicans have got to go.  They just have to go. 

 

Bernie for President

Immediately After the Debate

 

Floyd

I just walked off the debate stage and wanted to thank you.  This is the first time I’ve ever participated in a nationally televised debate, and it meant a lot to know that there were so many people cheering me on at thousands of debate watch parties and in their homes.

But this campaign isn’t about Bernie Sanders. It’s not a baseball game or a soap opera, and it shouldn’t be about anyone’s emails.  What this campaign is about is the grotesque levels of income inequality in this country, and whether we can mobilize our people to take back our democracy from a handful of Billionaires.  But it will take everyone coming together if that’s going to happen.

So, I want to ask you directly:

Make a contribution to our political revolution that will win the Democratic nomination, the White House, and take back our country from the billionaire class:

If you've saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:

Express Donate: $10

Express Donate: $23.81

(↑ Our average contribution during the debate ↑)

Express Donate: $50

Express Donate: $100

Or, donate another amount.

 

From Floyd:

 

I have $24.90 until payday which is next Monday the 19th.  That is all I have, but I gave $20.00 of that to Bernie tonight.  That's how strong I fell for him to be our next President.  I hope you can help support him too.

 

This country faces more serious problems today than at any time in modern history, and establishment politics will not successfully resolve them. Tonight we proved that not only can we win an election, but we can ensure no one who works full-time will have to live in poverty, that we can provide education as a right, and that we can guarantee health care for all Americans.

Make a contribution to our campaign today:

https://go.berniesanders.com/our-campaign

Thank you for your support.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

~~~

Bernie Sanders: ‘Don’t be surprised if we do well with a number of Republicans’

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), widely regarded as the most liberal candidate in the Democratic presidential field, made a pitch Thursday morning for his potential appeal to a not-so-obvious segment of the electorate: Republicans.

 

Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist from Vermont, was a guest on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” where host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, nudged him to talk about areas of “crossover” with GOP voters.

 

Sanders, who has emerged as a surprisingly strong challenger to Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton as he campaigns on a message of economic fairness, noted at the outset that he has several “strong differences” with many Republicans, including on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.

 

“But you know, Republicans have to send their kids to college,” Sanders said. “Working-class Republicans can’t afford to do that.  Working-class Republicans have seen their factories shut down and moved to China. Working-class Republicans are equally disgusted about a campaign-finance system which allows billionaires now to buy elections.”

 

Sanders highlights economic ‘injustice’ in Liberty University speech

 

Sanders has proposed free tuition at colleges and universities.  He has strongly opposed President Obama’s Pacific Rim free-trade accord.  And he wants to overturn a Supreme Court decision that expanded the ability for moneyed interests to influence elections.

 

“There are more than a few Republicans for Bernie Sanders out there,” Sanders said during the interview, which was taped Wednesday and aired Thursday morning.  “Don’t be surprised if we do well with a number of Republicans.”

 

Sanders has made a similar argument about the breadth of his appeal before, most notably during a speech last month at Liberty University, a conservative Christian school founded by the late evangelical Jerry Falwell.

 

During a convocation there, the senator told students that however stark their differences on social issues, they should agree there is “massive injustice” in the country’s economy and work together to address it. Sanders was greeted politely, but it was unclear how many supporters he gained.

 

While the Sanders claim certainly has its skeptics, aides point to his 2012 Senate re-election in Vermont, where he routed his Republican opponent with 71 percent of the vote.

~~~

 

COMMUNITY VIEWPOINT:

 SOCIAL SECURITY

Community viewpoint:

Why Social Security is in Trouble

By Allen W. Smith

Published: Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Much of the debate over Social Security today involves the question of whether or not Social Security is facing major financial problems.

As a scholar who has studied Social Security closely for the past 15 years, I can tell you that Social Security is in trouble, but not for the reasons usually pointed out. The primary problem facing Social Security today is that $2.7 trillion of its money is gone.

The Social Security Amendments of 1983, which included a hefty hike in payroll taxes, laid the foundation for 30 years of wrongful spending of Social Security money, and it fostered the deliberate deception of the American people for three decades. The intent of the legislation was to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, to build up a large reserve with which to pay benefits to the baby-boomer generation.  But, the intent of the legislation was not followed.

None of the surplus revenue was saved or invested in anything. Instead, all of the $2.7 trillion in surplus revenue, generated by the 1983 payroll tax hike, was deposited directly into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, where the dollars immediately became indistinguishable from dollars that were generated by income taxes or other federal taxes.  The money was spent to help finance wars, tax cuts for the rich, and other government programs.  Social Security didn’t see a dime of the actual money.  Instead, the Treasury issued nonmarketable IOUs to Social Security in exchange for the actual money.

There is much confusion about what the IOUs are, and what they are not.

First of all, they are not "real bonds" like the marketable bonds held by China and America's other creditors. The IOUs cannot be sold, even for a penny on the dollar, and they cannot be used to pay benefits. They are simply pieces of paper that represent a record of how much Social Security money has been spent for non-Social Social Security purposes. The existence of the IOUs is very useful to government officials and politicians when they try to explain what happened to the surplus Social Security money.

By law, surplus Social Security revenue is supposed to be invested in U.S. government bonds. This means that the money cannot be invested in the private sector. But, to be truly invested in government bonds, the surplus revenue must be used to purchase marketable bonds which can be resold in the open market at any time. This requirement would have been met if the surplus Social Security money had been used to purchase marketable U.S. Treasury bonds, as was the intent of the 1983 legislation.

This would have used up all of the surplus revenue, leaving no Social Security money for the government to raid and spend. But that was not done. None of the money was saved, and none of it was truly invested. Spending Social Security money and replacing the dollars with government IOUs does not constitute true investment.

The special IOUs are a creation of the Treasury. Their technical name is "special issues of the Treasury," but they are commonly referred to as "trust-fund bonds." The actual physical storage site for the IOUs is a fireproof file cabinet located at the office of the Bureau of the Public Debt in Parkersburg, West Virginia.

President George W. Bush visited the site and peered into the drawers of the file cabinet. He pointed out that the file cabinet was the closest thing to a trust fund that has ever existed. Later, in a speech at West Virginia University, Bush uttered the following words, "There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that future generations will pay —will pay for either in higher taxes or reduced benefits or cuts to other critical government programs."

—Allen W. Smith, a retired professor of economics who taught at Eastern Illinois University, is author of seven books. He lives in First of all, they are not "real bonds" like the marketable bonds held by China and America's other creditors.  The IOUs cannot be sold, even for a penny on the dollar, and they cannot be used to pay benefits. They are simply pieces of paper that represent a record of how much Social Security money has been spent for non-Social Social Security purposes.  The existence of the IOUs is very useful to government officials and politicians when they try to explain what happened to the surplus Social Security money.

By law, surplus Social Security revenue is supposed to be invested in U.S. government bonds.  This means that the money cannot be invested in the private sector. But, to be truly invested in government bonds, the surplus revenue must be used to purchase marketable bonds which can be resold in the open market at any time.  This requirement would have been met if the surplus Social Security money had been used to purchase marketable U.S. Treasury bonds, as was the intent of the 1983 legislation.

This would have used up all of the surplus revenue, leaving no Social Security money for the government to raid and spend.  But that was not done.  None of the money was saved, and none of it was truly invested. Spending Social Security money and replacing the dollars with government IOUs does not constitute true investment.

The special IOUs are a creation of the Treasury. Their technical name is "special issues of the Treasury," but they are commonly referred to as "trust-fund bonds." The actual physical storage site for the IOUs is a fireproof file cabinet located at the office of the Bureau of the Public Debt in Parkersburg, West Virginia.

President George W. Bush visited the site and peered into the drawers of the file cabinet.  He pointed out that the file cabinet was the closest thing to a trust fund that has ever existed.  Later, in a speech at West Virginia University, Bush uttered the following words, "There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that future generations will pay —will pay for either in higher taxes or reduced benefits or cuts to other critical government programs."

—Allen W. Smith, a retired professor of economics who taught at Eastern Illinois University, is author of seven books.  He lives in Frostproof.

~~~

If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again about Sunday the 18th.

 

God Bless You All

&

God Bless the United States of America

Floyd

OBOF TYMHM & MORE Vol 15 - No 19

 

THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)

YEAR ONE

YEAR TWO

YEAR THREE

YEAR FOUR

YEAR FIVE

 

OBOF YEAR FIVE INDEX
OBOF TYMHM	Jan. 07, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 1	Jan. 19, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 2	Feb.  03, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 3	Feb.  23, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 4	Mar.  02, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 5	Mar.  06, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 6	Mar.  13, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 7	Mar.   23, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 8	Mar.  28,  2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 9	Apr.  13,  2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 10	May  02,  2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 11	May  09,  2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 12	May  19, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 13	May  26, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 14	May  29, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 15	July   28, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 16	Sept.  15, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 17	Sept.  20, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 18	Sept.  27, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 19	Oct.   07, 2015

 

Agenda

 

1.  FROM FLOYD

 

2.  SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS

and his take on the

TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

TRADE AGREEMENT

3.  The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose.

 

4.  Rachel Maddow exposes Kevin McCarthy,

 speaker-in-waiting

 

PLEASE,

PLEASE

PAY  ATTENTION

TO WHAT IS HAPPENING.

THIS IS TRULY IMPORTANT.

 

FROM FLOYD

 

Last April and May there was a  strong push to Fast Track the "Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)" trade agreement through Congress with no hearings and without Congress being given an opportunity to see what was in the TPP.  At that time there was enough known from leaks of the, so called, Trade Agreement, to create enough resistance to stop the process. 

 

Since that time there has been no talk at all about this trade agreement, which has bothered me, because I felt that President Obama and the others wanting this agreement passed, were up to something and sure enough it has now surfaced.

 

The first article sets the stage as to what is now happening.  Again, they are trying to push this trade agreement through before resistance mounts to stop it.  In addition, I am printing a couple of articles that I included in April and May postings, which brings you up to date again as to what this trade agreement really is and does. 

 

For whatever it is worth, I think that maybe a new trade agreement is needed, and the trade part of TPP may have some very good points.  I am not well enough versed to know.  BUT you will note that in one of these articles, it is reported that of the 29 chapters that make up this TPP, only 2 chapters refer to trade.  The problem is, what is in those other 27 chapters.

 

In addition, there now are protests in Europe, and I think will be here too, about the Trans Atlantic Investment and Trade Partnership (TAITP), which is being negotiated in secrecy just like TPP and appears to be along the same lines as TPP.  It is said that TPP controls one half of the World's commerce and financial systems and the TAITP will control the other half.  Thus, the NEW WORLD ORDER.  SCARES ME.

 

I strongly urge you to contact you legislators, Senators and Representatives, and ask them to be sure as to what is being said in the other 27 chapters.  Also, pull up Senator Bernie Sanders e-mail and sign his partition.  I am unable to transfer his link here. 

 

Our sovereignty is at stake here.

~~~

 

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS

and his take on the

TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

TRADE AGREEMENT

 

 

Sign my petition to join our fight against the disastrous Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal. We cannot afford to let this trade deal hurt consumers and cost America jobs.

Dear Floyd,

Wall Street and big corporations just won a big victory to advance a disastrous trade deal.  Now it's on us to stop it from becoming law.

This morning, negotiators announced an "agreement in principle" for something called the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), meaning it will soon move to Congress for approval.

The TPP would expand the same failed "free trade" policies to 12 other nations that have already cost millions of jobs and shuttered tens of thousands of factories across the United States.

Make no mistake: if TPP passes, it will further hurt consumers and cost American jobs.  So, we must stop it, together.

In the Senate, I will do all that I can to defeat this agreement.

But I need you at my side in this fight, because we will be going against some of the biggest, strongest corporations in the world.

Add your name to mine to stand against the disastrous Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal. Let's show them that people can prevail over corporations.

The TPP follows in the footsteps of other unfettered free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA that have been supported by corporate America and that cost America millions of decent-paying jobs.

 

Since 2001, nearly 60,000 manufacturing plants in this country have been shut down, and we have lost almost 5 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs. NAFTA alone led to the loss of almost three-quarters of a million jobs — the Permanent Normalized Trade Agreement with China cost America four times that number: almost 3 million jobs.  These agreements are not the only reason why manufacturing in the United States has declined, but they are important factors.

 

The TPP would also give multinational corporations the ability to challenge laws passed in the United States that could negatively impact their “expected future profits.” Take, for example, a French waste management firm suing Egypt for over $100 million for increasing the minimum wage and improving labor laws. Egypt’s “crime” in this case is trying to improve life for their low-wage workers.  Or Vattenfall, a Swedish energy company, has used this process to sue Germany for $5 billion over its decision to phase out nuclear power.  Should the people of Germany have the right to make energy choices on their own or should these decisions be left in the hands of an unelected international tribunal?

We face the same threats here at home if the TPP passes.

Virtually every major union and environmental organization in the United States is against the deal. Major religious groups are as well because they know what it could mean for some of the poorest people on the planet.

Wall Street, corporate America and their representatives in Congress will try to pass this bad trade deal.  This is our chance to make our voices heard.

Click here to add your name to mine to stand against passing the disastrous Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal. 

I feel candidates should use their campaigns to  influence 789 legislation being considered in Congress.  Some candidates haven’t even expressed an opinion on this critical issue, which, frankly, I don’t really understand.

But as I’ve said before, this campaign is not about Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or Jeb Bush — it’s about the needs of the American people.

And we need a new approach to trade in this country — one that benefits working families and not just the CEOs of multinational corporations.

Thank you for standing with working families.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

~~~

Opinions

The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose.

 

By Elizabeth Warren February 25

 a Democrat represents

 Massachusetts in the Senate.

 

The United States is in the final stages of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries.  Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world?

One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft.  The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled.  Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations.  Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work.  Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences.  If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court.  But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators.  If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.

If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges.  Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next.  Maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between two corporations, but not in cases between corporations and governments.  If you’re a lawyer looking to maintain or attract high-paying corporate clients, how likely are you to rule against those corporations when it’s your turn in the judge’s seat?

If the tilt toward giant corporations wasn’t clear enough, consider who would get to use this special court: only international investors, which are, by and large, big corporations.  So if a Vietnamese company with U.S. operations wanted to challenge an increase in the U.S. minimum wage, it could use ISDS. But if an American labor union believed Vietnam was allowing Vietnamese companies to pay slave wages in violation of trade commitments, the union would have to make its case in the Vietnamese courts.

Why create these rigged, pseudo-courts at all?  What’s so wrong with the U.S. judicial system? Nothing, actually.  But after World War II, some investors worried about plunking down their money in developing countries, where the legal systems were not as dependable.  They were concerned that a corporation might build a plant one day only to watch a dictator confiscate it the next.  To encourage foreign investment in countries with weak legal systems, the United States and other nations began to include ISDS in trade agreements.

Those justifications don’t make sense anymore, if they ever did.  Countries in the TPP are hardly emerging economies with weak legal systems.  Australia and Japan have well-developed, well-respected legal systems, and multinational corporations navigate those systems every day, but ISDS would preempt their courts too.  And to the extent there are countries that are riskier politically, market competition can solve the problem.  Countries that respect property rights and the rule of law — such as the United States — should be more competitive, and if a company wants to invest in a country with a weak legal system, then it should buy political-risk insurance.

The use of ISDS is on the rise around the globe.  From 1959 to 2002, there were fewer than 100 ISDS claims worldwide.  But in 2012 alone, there were 58 cases. Recent cases

~~~

Rachel Maddow exposes Kevin McCarthy, speaker-in-waiting, channeling Sarah Palin

 

by Egberto WilliesFollow

 Thu Oct 01, 2015

Rachel Maddow took a closer look at Speaker of the House-in-waiting Kevin McCarthy.  It was difficult to discern any major differences between McCarthy and Sarah Palin. They share the same proclivity for gaffes and misspeaking. Most importantly, their actual political accomplishments are negligible.

Just like Sarah Palin was being ushered into the vice presidency unprepared, Kevin McCarthy is as well. His ascent seems to be based on tactical expediency instead of competence.  The expectation is that Kevin McCarthy will keep the right flank in check.  The pundits think he won't.  The fact that there is little opposition to him becoming speaker likely means he will be given a probation period by the tea party and right wing factions.

Rachel Maddow pointed out that Kevin McCarthy has only gotten two bills passed. Both bills named a structure.

Maddow then played snippets from a recent McCarthy speech on foreign policy.  Many of his sentences were simply incoherent.  This guy is to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  He will be  third in line for the presidency.  For a party that loves to pride itself on national security, having a stream of incompetent people in office (or attempting to get into office) does little to bolster credibility.

One of Kevin McCarthy's first attempts to show his speaker bonafides gave Hillary Clinton and Democrats a huge boost.  McCarthy went on Fox News to brag about his party's responsibility in bringing down Clinton's poll numbers via the Benghazi hearings. In effect, he confirmed what Democrats have been saying all along: Republican denials that the Benghazi hearing was a political stunt were but a lie.

Comedians will love Kevin McCarthy.  Sadly, it will be at the detriment of the country.  Rachel Maddow asked the appropriate question: Are you sure you want this guy to be your speaker?

~~~

If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again later this week or first of next.

God Bless You All

&

God Bless the United States of America

Floyd