WELCOME TO OPINIONS BASED
ON FACTS (OBOF)
&
THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)
|
Name
|
Published
|
|
OVERVIEW
|
Dec. 28, 2010
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 1
|
Dec. 30, 2010
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 2
|
Jan. 10, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 3
|
Jan. 17, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 4
|
Jan. 24, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 5
|
Jan. 31, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 6
|
Feb. 07, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 7
|
Feb. 14, 2011
|
|
SPECIAL ISSUE
|
Feb. 18, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 8
|
Feb. 21, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 9
|
Mar. 01, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 10
|
Mar. 07, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 1
|
Mar. 14, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 1A
|
Mar. 21, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 2
|
Mar. 25, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 3
|
Mar. 29, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 4
|
Apr. 04, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 5
|
Apr. 11, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 6
|
Apr. 18, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 7
|
Apr. 25, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 7A
|
Apr. 29, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 8
|
May 02, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 9
|
May 09, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 10
|
May 16, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 11
|
May 24, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART
12
|
Jun. 06, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 13
|
Jun. 20, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 14
|
July 05, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 14A
|
July 18, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 15
|
July 19, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 16
|
Aug. 03, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 17
|
Aug. 15, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 18
|
Aug. 29, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 19
|
Sept. 12, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 20
|
Sept. 26, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 21
|
Oct. 10, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 22
|
Oct. 24, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 22 EXTRA
|
Nov. 04, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART
23
|
Nov. 07, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART
24
|
Nov. 21, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART
25
|
Dec. 05, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART
26
|
Dec. 19, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART
27
|
JAN. 03, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
27A
|
JAN. 05, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
28
|
JAN. 17, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
29
|
JAN. 31, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
30
|
Feb.
14, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
CL1
|
Feb.
21, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
30 EXTRA
|
Feb. 23,
2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
31
|
Feb.
28, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
CL2 - 59
|
Mar.
06, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
31 EXTRA
|
Mar.
07, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
32
|
Mar.
13, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
CL3 - 1
|
Mar.
20, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
32 EXTRA
|
Mar.
24, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
33
|
Apr.
10, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
CL 4 - 2
|
Apr.
17, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
34
|
Apr.
24, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
CL5 - 49
|
May
01, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
35
|
May
09, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
CL6 - 19
|
May
15, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
35 EXTRA
|
May
18, 2012
|
|
.. SS
& MORE PART 36
|
May
22, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
36 EXTRA
|
May
25, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
36
|
|
|
EXTRA II
|
June 01, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
37
|
June 05. 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
37 EXTRA
|
June 07, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
38
|
June 12, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
39
|
June 19, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
40
|
June 26, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
41
|
July
03, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
42
|
July
10, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
43
|
July
17, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
44
|
July
24,2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
45
|
July
31, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
46
|
Aug. 07, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
46 EXTRA
|
Aug. 09, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
47
|
Aug. 14, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
48
|
Aug. 21, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
49
|
Aug. 28, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
50
|
Sept. 04. 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
51
|
Sept. 11. 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 1
|
Sept. 20, 2012
|
|
|
|
IN THIS
ISSUE
1.
Presidential debate dates.
2.
Notes of concern.
3.
The real importance's of Bill Clinton's speech.
4.
House Republicans plan two months vacatio0n.
5.
Is Democratic platform in synch
w/public on National Defense.
6.
Riddles of Working Class Politics.
~~~
"VOTE,
AN EDUCATED VOTE"
What is an educated vote? It is one that has been made with as much
knowledge, based on facts, not misinformation, that an individual can obtain.
CONVENTIONS
ARE OVER,
DEBATES
ARE NEXT.
PRESIDENTIAL
DEBATES
October 3 -
11 - 16 - 22
The 11th
will be VP debate
~~~
NOTES OF
CONCERN
By Floyd Bowman.
TYMHM / OBOF.
First, one
the most important postings I have had for you will be an EXTRA on Sunday,
September 23, 2012. Some things that
happened just last night, Wednesday, September 19, 2012, will take longer to
put together than I have time for today.
It may be a little late Sunday, but it will be there for your reading on
Sunday evening, the 23rd. If, you have
missed this you really want to read it.
If I couldn't have heard it with my own ears and seen it at the same
time, it would be hard to believe.
Secondly, I've been
trying to figure out what the cause might be for the big decline in reader
participation. It could be a number of
things, of course. If, it is outside environmental
things there isn't much I can do about those, but if it is about my writing of
opinions or not enough writing of opinions, or too much reprint of articles or
not enough, or the ones I choose just aren't to your interest, you see, there are so many things. I have come to the conclusion, that the old
theory, that if, you don't pay for something it must not be worth anything,
might be part of it. And, of course, you
know you don't have to pay for OBOF.
All the articles that
I re-print are statement of opinions based on facts that the writer has dug
out. There are some that I pass by,
because I feel the writer's opinion is not based on facts or he/she doesn't
give the basis of facts to support the opinion.
Of course, it could
also be, that in this day and age, people just can't believe that someone would
spend this kind of time and effort for free.
Maybe you feel there is a gimick in this effort. Well, I can tell you there isn't. I do this simply to try and provide my fellow
Americans with information I think they should have and maybe just don't have
the time to seek it out. I do get paid
for this effort. The payment is great
satisfaction in trying to do my little part to help this wonderful country and
system that we have.
One change I am making
now is to, more accurately, state what this blog really is. When I started in, December 2010, the hottest
item was the future of Social Security. For
a long time I concentrated entirely on that subject. Then I changed to "SS &
more." I feel as strong about
saving Social Security now as when I started.
But, at the same time, so much more has happened that SS is not on the
front burner now. I think that shortly
after the first of the year, it will be a hot item again and we will all have
to fight hard to save it.
Until then, my effort
will be directed to OBOF (Opinions Based On Facts) and TYMHM (Things You May
Have Missed). It seems that all things
today are reduced to letter abbreviations.
Supposebly, the abbreviation should have a ring to it that catches in
your brain. I believe that OBOF, to some
extent, does that, but TYMHM doesn't.
Anyway, I'll be a pioneer and go ahead and use it. SO HERE GOES WITH
"THINGS YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED" and "OPINIONS BASED ON
FACTS" PART 1.
~~~
The
Real Importance of Bill Clinton’s
Wonderfully Long Speech
By Robert Reich
NationofChange
Published Friday Sept. 7, 2012
Bill Clinton’s speech
tonight at the Democratic National Convention was very long but it was
masterful — not only in laying out the case for Barack Obama and against Mitt
Romney and Paul Ryan, but in giving the American public what they most want and
need in this election season: details, facts, and logic.
Republicans have eschewed
all detail, all fact, all logic. Theirs has been a campaign of ideological
bromides mixed with outright bald-faced lies.
Therein lies the
importance of what Bill Clinton accomplished tonight. But, just as importantly,
it wasn’t a wonky talk. He packaged the facts in a way people could hear. This
is the highest calling of a public educator.
The question is not how many undecided voters saw the speech (I doubt
many did) but whether it galvanizes Democrats — giving them the clarity of
conviction and argument they need over the next nine weeks to explain why Obama
must be re-elected, and why a Romney-Ryan administration would be a disaster
for this country.
I believe Clinton
~~~
HOUSE REPUBLICANS PLAN
TWO MONTH VACATION,
LEAVING KEY BILLS AWAITING ACTION.
By JOSH ISRAEL
Think Progress/News
Published: Saturday 15
September 2012
House Republican Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) announced Friday that after next
week, the House will stand in recess until November 13. His plan for a nearly two month vacation will
undoubtedly allow more time for campaigning, but will leave several vital bills
awaiting action.
Among the important
legislation, the House will likely not address before the November elections:
1. Violence Against Women Act
re-authorization. Though a bipartisan Senate majority passed a strong
re-authorization bill in April, the Republican House leadership refused to
allow a vote on the Senate version of the bill. The House passed a watered down version on a mostly-party lines
vote, leaving victims to wait for House action.
2. The American Jobs Act. Republicans have been blocking President Obama’s jobs
legislation for more than a year. Though House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) promised in 2010 that a GOP Congress would
focus on job creation, he has blocked this bill’s immediate infrastructure
investments, tax credits for working Americans and employers, and aid to state
and local governments to prevent further layoffs of teachers, firefighters,
police officers, and other public safety officials.
3. Tax cuts for working families. In July, the Senate passed a bill extending tax-cuts for the first $250,000 in
annual income. The Republican House
leadership has refused to consider the bill, holding it hostage to their demands for a full
extension of Bush-era tax cuts for millionaires.
4. Veterans Job Corps Act. The Senate is currently considering bipartisan legislation to help America
5. Sequestration. A
spokesman for Boehner said earlier this week that stopping budget cuts he voted for last August “topped our July
agenda and remains atop our agenda for September.” While
House Republicans have complained about the imminent spending
reductions and passed a bill that would require President Obama to find offsets for spending cuts they don’t like,
Republican Leader Canter could not name a single compromise he was
willing to make to get a deal.
6. Farm Bill. Despite strong support for a 5-year farm bill
from even conservative groups like the Farm Bureau Association — the House
leadership has not scheduled a vote on the bill. The current law expires September 30. Without passage, 90 percent of the work of the Department of
Agriculture could be defunded.
7. Wind tax credit. The Senate may act next week to renew an
expiring wind energy tax credit. Despite
bipartisan support — including from original author Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the
Examiner notes that the House is unlikely to pass the renewal. Despite GOP calls
for energy independence, the expiration has threatened the wind energy industry and already
led to job cuts.
These, in addition to
drought assistance, postal service reform, addressing the Estate Tax, cyber
security legislation, fixes for Medicare reimbursement rates and the
Alternative Minimum Tax, and all 12 of the FY 2013 Appropriations Bills remain
unaddressed.
Four years ago, Republicans objected when then-Speaker of the
House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) adjourned Congress for a five-week August recess
without bringing up their energy legislation. Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) shouted “Madame Speaker,
where art thou?" Where oh where has Congress gone?” Now, they plan a two months vacation, even if
it means allowing vital programs to expire and working families to suffer.
~~~
Is the Democratic Platform in Synch With the
Public on National Defense?
Aaron
Mehta and R. Jeffrey Smith
The Center for Public Integrity / News
Analysis
Published: Friday 7
September 2012
From Floyd:
This article, while somewhat detailed,
provides information that has not been available before as a result of a new
and different method of conducting a survey.
There is going to be a great deal of discussion regarding National
Defense between now and the first of the year.
Something will definitely happen, one way or another by the first of the
year when "sequestration" kicks in.
That is an automatic deficit agreement both parties made in 2011 to
break the logjam of raising the Nation Debt ceiling.
“The platform, released
Tuesday, leaves plenty of wiggle room for the administration, eschewing hard
numbers or strategic decisions in favor of generalities — a practice typical in
platforms released at convention time that are heavy on rhetoric but light on
specifics.”
The Democratic party platform released this week suggests that national
security officials in a second Obama administration will attempt to leave
outdated military projects behind, to bolster the country’s international
leadership, and to control nuclear weapons materials. Policies that match some, but not all, of the
preferences expressed by members of both political parties in a May survey organized by the Center for Public
Integrity.
The platform, released
Tuesday, leaves plenty of wiggle room for the administration, eschewing hard
numbers or strategic decisions in favor of generalities — a practice typical in
platforms released at convention time that are heavy on rhetoric but light on
specifics.
The 2012 platform is even
more general than the Democrats’ 2008 version, which contained highly specific
pledges of new aid to Afghanistan
($1 billion) and Israel
But it still provides a starting point to consider how Obama and his team
might handle national security issues if he wins a second term. (Our look at
the GOP’s platform was published Aug. 30.) While the platform does not
specifically call for defense cuts, it mirrors the strategic plan laid out by Secretary of Defense
Leon Panetta, who in January called for moving away from heavy land forces and
restructuring how the military spends its funds, while leaving the future
defense budget mostly level.
“After more than a decade
of war, we have an opportunity to retool our armed forces and our defense
strategy,” to ensure “our security with a more agile and more flexible force,”
states the platform.
To accomplish these goals,
Panetta’s office has already proposed to increase funding for Special Forces
while moving away from some traditional warfare assets. He was supported by
senior military officers, including Army chief of staff Ray Odierno, who said
in April he doesn’t believe “we’ll ever see a straight conventional conflict
again in the future.” The Center’s survey, conducted with the Stimson Center
and the University
of Maryland
Although the Republican
platform also lacked specific figures on potential increases in funding or
troop levels, GOP nominee Mitt Romney has made it clear that he intends to
expand national defense spending if elected in November. In the survey,
however, overall cuts in defense spending were supported by voters from both
sides of the political spectrum. In fact, two-thirds of Republicans and nine in
10 Democrats polled supported the immediate cuts.
The average amount was
around $103 billion, a substantial portion of the current $562 billion base
defense budget, while the majority supported cutting it at least $83 billion.
Those numbers dwarf the threatened cut of $55 billion at the end of this year
under so-called “sequestration” legislation passed in 2011, which Pentagon
officials and lawmakers from both parties have decried as devastating.
The Democrats' platform
includes language promoting the country’s role abroad, not just with military
force but with leadership on the international stage. Africa, Latin America and
the Middle East are areas that get special paragraphs calling for U.S. America
But strong international
leadership may be less popular with Americans than the party’s leaders
evidently expect. Seventy-two percent of respondents in our poll said the U.S.
The platform reiterates
Obama’s plan to remove U.S.
forces from Afghanistan
And what about the most destructive weapons in the U.S. Russia Russia
Obama’s aides have been
vague in this election year about what kind of reductions he might support in a
second term, and the White House has postponed any public discussion of nuclear
targeting changes widely seen as a prerequisite to a major cut. But a prominent
group appointed to advise Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on arms control
matters has tentatively backed two options: implementing START more quickly
than the treaty’s 2018 deadline, or informally deciding with Russia
The recommendation, now awaiting final approval by the International
Security Advisory Board including former Secretary of Defense William Perry,
the former commander of the
Global Strike Command, and many others -- comes with a warning that “arms
control fatigue, electoral politics, and the thorny issue of missile defense
have all converged in 2012, creating poor conditions for trust and dialogue.”
In the survey, members of
the public showed little hesitation about making cuts in nuclear forces,
however. Respondents on average favored
at least a 27 percent cut in spending on nuclear arms — the largest proportional
cut of any in the survey. Overall, two-thirds of those polled — 78 percent of
Democrats, 64 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of independents — expressed
a desire to cut spending on nuclear arms.
~~~
Riddles of Working Class
Politics
George
Lakey
Waging Nonviolence / Op-Ed
Published: Thursday 20
September 2012
NOTE FROM FLOYD:
I find this article particularly interesting, as a discussion of Class
and developments along the way. I am
placing the background of Mr. Lakey first so that you will have a feel for the creditability
of the writer. I found it very
informative and does relate to what seems to be happening in our country at the
present time. It is a very good article
to read just before the EXTRA that will be posted Sunday, which I referred to
at the beginning of this posting.
ABOUT George Lakey
George Lakey is Visiting
Professor at Swarthmore
College
In today’s United States
“Why do working class people vote against their own
interests?” I’ve heard that question dozens of times from middle class
activists trying to navigate the mysteries of social class and politics. I’ve
heard it so many times — often more as a complaint than as an honest question —
that I’m tempted to retort, “Why do middle
class people vote against their own interests?”
After all, the Republican-leaning middle class has been
hammered by Republican policies for quite some time. Just to remind us:
Corporations are subsidized to export middle class jobs, as well as working
class jobs, and consultants from Bain Capital can tell you how. Then there is
Republican tax policy, by which the super-rich gain a larger share of the
national income at the expense of the middle class. Still, a large part of the
middle class votes Republican.
But this column is about working class politics. Let’s
start, therefore, by distinguishing between “politics” and “elections.” For at
least two big reasons, elections don’t teach us much about the political wants
of workers.
In the first place, working class people tend to be
deeply cynical about electoral politics. Most believe that the major parties
can’t be trusted because of the 1 percent’s control. So a large percentage of
working class people don’t bother to vote.
During the Great Depression the Democratic Party led by Franklin Delano Roosevelt did become the party of hope for workers, since
it delivered substantially: Social Security, the Works Progress Administration
and a favorable climate for unionization. The Democrats did that under enormous
pressure from worker and small farmer movements that used widespread nonviolent
direct action. Ironically, the historical memory attached to the 1930s and
1940s wasn’t the success of direct action but instead the effectiveness of the
ballot box. And Democrats got the credit.
But that was long ago and far away. The Democrats have
betrayed workers many times since. They failed to pass universal health care
under Truman and failed to repeal the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which was a direct
attack on organized labor. They betrayed white workers by deciding in the 1960s
to fund the black-oriented War on Poverty from working class taxes instead of
taxing the rich. More recently, we had working class boy Bill Clinton as a
grown-up presidential candidate, promising labor to oppose the North American
Free Trade Act (NAFTA) — and then, after a meeting with Wall Street, reversing
himself. Clinton
But a lot of working class people vote anyway, despite a
two-party arrangement rigged against them. My mention of President Roosevelt
suggests one reason why, and I suspect that it’s rooted in people’s work life.
All of us who have worked in factories or other blue
collar jobs, as I have, know that there are bosses and then there are bosses.
Some are better than others — a bit more human, flexible and respectful,
looking for a way to make a hard job easier. For those of us who chafe in
routine and mechanical jobs, if that’s a job we need to take now, we prefer one
with a decent boss.
Like bosses, politicians are not all the same. President
Franklin D. Roosevelt seemed to “get it.” He communicated to my dad a
commitment to easing our lot even within the limitations of a depressed and
depressing capitalism. Thus, working class people can develop preferences for
one candidate over another and still hold an overall cynical view of elections
and expected performance. They are not as likely as middle class people to
project “savior” fantasies on candidates.
The vulnerability of middle class people to political
infatuation reminds me of a parallel racial difference regarding President
Obama. All the black people I know have been steadfastly loyal to him. That’s
because they were realistic about our system. They didn’t join a romance with
Superman Obama, and so could skip the disillusionment that afflicts so many white
people I know.
Ronald Reagan attracted many working class people, and I
learned something about that when in 1984 the Jobs With Peace Campaign ran a
referendum in a number of counties in Pennsylvania
We did exit polling. This was a typical interchange:
“Who did you vote for as president?”
“And how did you vote on the Jobs with Peace question?”
“I voted ‘yes.’”
Then, noticing my hesitation, the voter said, “Well,
Reagan is a good man and a good leader, but you know he’s wrong about some
things like out-of-control military spending, and in our state we really need
that money for schools and stuff like that.”
In short, our electoral system is not set up to assist us
to know what’s really going on inside voters’ heads; it forces choice among
candidates, not values or directions or concrete programs. Just because
candidates claim a mandate for this or that program doesn’t mean we have to
believe them.
Sometimes middle class people will try to guess the minds
of working class people through how they behave. The United States
That conclusion ignores differences in class styles.
Compared with middle class people, working class people are usually more
demonstrative. They are also more likely to have family members serving in the
military.
During the Vietnam war, polls indicated that the
educational demographic most opposed to the war was people who had not finished
high school. College graduates were overwhelmingly for the war until late in
its terrible course.
To my knowledge the first national, mass membership
organization to come out against the Iraq U.S. soldiers from Afghanistan
The next time we see flags in neighborhoods, we might ask
ourselves the style question. If 100 flags fly in a working class neighborhood
of 1,000, there might be 600 households who are actually against that war,
while in the no-flag thousand-home middle class neighborhood across town a
large majority might support the war. Middle class people just aren’t so much
into flags!
Working class
legacies
How, then, can middle class people learn about
working class political attitudes?One option is to get to know a variety of
working class people and ask them. Another is to find out what working class
organizations are taking a position on, like the AFL-CIO. Another is to read
stories like mine about longshoremen refusing to load weapons for war
and other stories of workers acting sacrificially for their values. Still
another source is to read polls, although a frustratingly large number of polls
that note gender and race and age don’t note class. And if they do, what’s
their definition of “class?”
Of course, race may reveal something about working class
attitudes, since such high proportions of African Americans and Latinos and
indigenous people are working class. I remember a flash poll done after the United States invaded the Caribbean island of Grenada
Then there’s a kind
of macro-historical way of weaning ourselves away from the classist
conditioning we all experience, which amounts to conditioning against working
class people. To counteract it we should ask: Had it not been for working class
movements, what would our society be like? We should ask: In Sweden and Norway
In today’s United States
~~~
If, the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I talk with you
again, on Sunday, September 25, 2012.
"God Bless You All
& God Bless the United States of America
Floyd.
No comments:
Post a Comment