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
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 2
|
Sept. 24,2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 3
|
Oct. 02, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 4
|
Oct. 04, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 5
|
Oct. 09, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 6
|
Oct. 18, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 7
|
Oct. 24, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 8
|
Oct. 31, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 8 EXTRA
|
Nov. 04, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 9
|
Nov. 13, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 10
|
Nov. 20, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 11
|
Nov. 27, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 12
|
Dec. 04, 2012
|
IN THIS ISSUE
1.
Opening comments.
2.
Progress on Fiscal Cliff.
3.
White House on Social Security.
4.
Progress on Social Security.
5.
Kill Social Security with a smile.
6.
Debt limit option for the President.
RACE
RACE
RACE
OBSTRUCTIONISM
OBSTRUCTIONISM
OBSTRUCTIONISM
I respect
your option to disagree with me regarding the above words, but every action on
Capital Hill says exactly that. I admit
that the word "RACE" is an opinion and it is mine. But the actions of the first and one half
weeks after the election, simply leaves me no other conclusion.
For example:
On the Ed Show, Nov.
27, 2012, Speaker John Boehner said " Obama's economic plan is a failure
and the American people know it."
Mitch McConnell, Minority leader in the Senate said "To call this a
recovery is an insult to the word recovery." Ed was using these statements to show how
much the Republicans are ignoring the truth. Bill O'Riley of Fox news said "The truth
is that Obama has not improved the economy." To prove his point, that the President has
improved the economy, Ed listed the following facts:
First, there
was a record 247 million shoppers buying, this past
Black Friday.
They spent an estimated $59.1 billion.
All this was up 12.8% over last year,
2011.
Home prices in 20 of the largest U. S.
Home prices are up 3.0% from Sept. 2011.
Thirty two (32)
straight months of job growth producing 5.3 million new private sector jobs.
How about this
one? Consumer Confidence Index is at the highest level since Feb. 2008 at 73.7.
How can you look at these few FACTS and say that there hasn't
been some recovery from the point
that we almost had a total collapse of the financial system.
You see, this is just one example that shows the Republicans are
still after President
Obama and not interested in trying to work with him for the good of the
country. Now, I ask you, what reason,
other than he is a Democrat, would they be so blatantly insulting. They don't have to worry about beating him
again in an election and they are just hurting themselves by not working for
the good of the country.
It is terrible and I
regret it, but these southern leaders just can't stand to have to work with a
black person that is above them in stature.
~~~
WHAT PROGRESS IS BEING MADE
WITH
THE FISCAL CLIFF
By Floyd
Bowman.
Publisher
"Opinions Based On Facts."
The biggest
concern right now, in solving the Fiscal Cliff problems, is the ending of the
Bush Tax Cuts as of Jan. 1, 2013.
President Obama and the Democrats want the cuts for the wealthy to
expire as scheduled, but not the cuts for those making $250,000 a year or
less. Naturally, the Republicans want
the cuts to expire for all and then cut taxes even more for those making more
than $250,000.
Nancy Palosi,
the Minority leader in the House, believes that if the bill, they have
introduced to save the tax cuts for those making $250,000 or less were brought
to the floor for a vote that it would pass with almost a 100% vote. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, will not
let it come to a vote. SO, she has told
the leadership in the House, that if it is not brought up for vote by today,
Tuesday Dec. 4, 2012, she is going to start what is called a "Discharge
Petition."
If she can get
218 signatures from members of the House, she can by-pass the Leadership and it
must be brought up for a vote. It is
going to be interesting to see how this plays out. This alone may call for an EXTRA, later this
week, along with many other things that are happening.
If she is
successful, the Republicans are going to be between a rock and a hard
place. This is a bill to cut taxes and for Republicans to vote against a tax
cut bill is just an absolute no, no.
~~~
White House Rules Social Security Out of ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Talks
Pat Garofalo
Think Progress / News Report
Published: Wednesday 28 November 2012
White House spokesman Jay
Carney said Monday that Social Security is one entitlement program that should
be addressed on a “separate track.”
According to White House
Press Secretary Jay Carney, Social Security should not be on the table during negotiations
over the so-called “fiscal cliff,” the set of spending cuts and tax increases
scheduled for the end of the year. Carney rightly noted that Social Security has nothing to do with today’s deficits:
White
House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that Social Security is one entitlement
program that should be addressed on a “separate track.”
“We should address the drivers of the
deficit and Social Security currently is not a driver of the deficit,” Carney
told reporters today.
Lawmakers are trying to
craft a deal to prevent the “fiscal cliff” from occurring, and have pulled
Social Security and health care programs into the negotiations. But Social Security is statutorily barred from
adding to the deficit, and is fully funded for more than two decades, unlike scores of other federal programs. As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
has explained, “Social Security has not added a single penny, not a dime, a
nickel, a dollar to the budget problems we have. Never has. And for the next 30 years, it won’t do that.”
One simple change, raising
the cap on the payroll tax so that it is applied to more income for wealthier
Americans, would ensure Social Security’s funding for decades to come. But Senate Republicans — aided by wealthy CEOs —
are trying to use the manufactured crisis of the “fiscal cliff” to justify
cutting benefits upon which seniors and many others depend. Last year, Social Security alone kept more
than 20 million people out of poverty.
~~~
Progress on Social Security
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday welcomed White House
assurances that Social Security benefits won’t be cut as part of negotiations
on a year-end deficit-reduction deal. “This
is a step in the right direction for more than 55 million Americans who have
earned Social Security benefits today and every working American who will
receive Social Security benefits in the future,” said Sanders, the founder of
the Senate Defending Social Security Caucus.
“The simple truth is that Social
Security has not contributed a nickel to the national debt so it makes no sense
for it to be part of deficit negotiations,” he said
“The American people
have been clear that Social Security is enormously important to their
well-being and that it should not be cut,” Bernie said. “The election and poll after poll show clearly
that the American people want the wealthiest people and the largest
corporations in this country, who are doing phenomenally well, to play a
significant role in reducing the deficit.”
White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Monday that
Social Security should be addressed separately from the lame-duck deficit
negotiations. “We should address the
drivers of the deficit and Social Security currently is not a driver of the
deficit,” Carney said.
~~~
How to Kill Social Security, With a Smile
Froma Harrop
NationofChange
/ Op-Ed
Published: Tuesday 27 November 2012
Social Security's foes need Plan B.
Conservatives never much liked Social Security. It's a
wildly popular government program that's totally solvent until 2033. It will be
easily fixable and by then may not need fixing at all. Doesn't quite fit with
the government-can't-do-anything-right talking point.
Then there's the Social Security Trust Fund, a nice hunk
of change invested in Treasury securities that some conservatives don't want to
pay back. The trust fund represents payroll taxes collected from workers and
employers — taxes raised a quarter century ago to provide a cushion against the
predicted stresses of an aging population. The money in the trust fund was
loaned, not given, to the federal government.
Many conservatives argue that the trust fund doesn't
exist, thanks to cheesy accounting of the money. Whoops, it's been spent, they
say. Tough luck.
The counterargument goes that the trust fund is real
enough that the Treasury may not default on its debt to it without a vote by
Congress. Name one rep of either party who would vote for stiffing the trust
fund. Counterargument wins.
So Social Security's foes
need Plan B.
They already tried Plan A during the George W. Bush
years. Recall efforts to privatize the program — that is, let workers put their
Social Security payroll tax money into private investment plans. Recall how the
boosters tried to sell stocks as a no-lose investment.
The beauty of Plan A was
that Wall Street would get its cut, and eventually, the federal government
would no longer be obligated to cut Social Security checks. But the public was
so protective of traditional Social Security that Plan A crashed even before
the stock market did.
Plan B starts with means-testing. It is a clever approach
because it expropriates liberal rhetoric about the rich helping the poor.
Means-testing would reduce the benefits of the well-to-do
while keeping (or raising) them for others. This is an excellent way to destroy
the loyalty to the program among our more powerful citizens. The deal could
include making permanent the Social Security payroll tax holiday scheduled to
expire on Jan. 1 — in the interests of progressive taxation, of course.
Another counter-idea: The payroll tax holiday was always
a bad concept from a true liberal perspective. (President Obama backed it as a
stimulus measure.) It's bad because Social Security is an earned benefit. You
can't easily take away something people know they've paid for.
So here's the work-around: It makes no sense, writes
conservative Ross Douthat, "to finance our retirement system with a tax
that ... imposes particular burdens on small business and the working
class."
How liberal sounding. How sneaky. Start paying for Social
Security out of general revenues and reduce benefits for the wealthy, and what
do you have? You have welfare. You know what happens to welfare.
Douthat breaks from liberal sweet-talk and gets down to
basics. He urges Republicans to regard the payroll tax as "an obstacle —
originally created by their political enemies! — to any restraint in what the
program spends."
Actually, the law forbids Social Security to take a
single penny from general revenues. I can't think of a better spending
restraint than that. But the payroll tax is definitely a political restraint on
plans to steal the trust fund.
By the way, we already have a system for means-testing.
It's called the progressive income tax. If conservatives think rich people
should pay more, they can simply let marginal tax rates (and the capital gains
tax rate) rise. Complicating Social Security with more means-testing and ending
the tax dedicated to keeping it afloat would kill the program — with a smile.
On to Plan C.
ABOUT Froma Harrop
Froma Harrop’s nationally
syndicated column appears in over 150 newspapers, including The Dallas Morning
News, Houston Chronicle, Seattle Times, Denver Los Angeles New York New England Associated Press
News Executives Association
~~~
The Debt Limit Option President Obama Can
Use
By BRUCE
BARTLETT,
The Fiscal Times
April 29, 2011
NOTE FROM FLOYD:
The option, referred to below, is
not without precedents. President
Clinton used it, successfully, during his Presidency. I, personally, don't think that President Obama
will hesitate, this time around, to use such an approach.
The vast majority of
those commenting on raising the federal debt limit are
certain that Congress will act in time to forestall a debt default, which would
occur if the Treasury lacked sufficient cash to pay interest due that day or to
redeem maturing securities. The smart
money says that Congress could not possibly be so stupid as to permit a default
and will raise the debt limit just in time. Americans would likely agree, however, that
some members of Congress really are that stupid. But here’s the good news: An
arcane provision in the U.S.
Over the last several
weeks, a number of Republican congressmen have said that they will not vote to
raise the debt limit unless massive cuts are guaranteed in advance. Some Republican senators have promised a filibuster against a debt
limit increase should it pass the House. And Tea Party spokesmen have promised
strenuous primary opposition for any Republican voting for a debt limit
increase. A Republican running against a
Tea Party member for the party nomination could be accused of supporting
President Obama to increase the national debt — a charge that would assure an
election loss
The Republican leadership is
looking for a way to get just enough members to join with Democrats to raise
the debt limit by attaching some sort of budget-cutting package or mechanism,
such as a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that would get the
necessary votes. These negotiations will
be protracted and any measure that attracted Republican votes would likely lose
Democratic votes. It’s not clear to me
that there is any way under current political circumstances of devising a
budget package that could be appended to the debt limit that would get
sufficient votes for passage before a default occurs.
Some Wall Street types
are predicting a financial apocalypse in
the event of default. But there is no
evidence that this has moved Republican hardliners one inch. They heard similar warnings about financial
apocalypse in the fall of 2008, leading to passage of TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program,
which rescued many banks and prevented a meltdown in the banking system. Although most economists believe that TARP was
essential and that the economy would be far worse off had it not been enacted,
there’s not a single Republican who will defend it because they universally
believe TARP was an unjustified bailout for fat-cat bankers-- a horrible
mistake and set a dreadful precedent.
Only a trivial amount of
spending was
actually cut by the [shutdown] deal,
leaving many Republicans to believe
they were sold out by their leaders.
actually cut by the [shutdown] deal,
leaving many Republicans to believe
they were sold out by their leaders.
More recently, Republicans and Democrats cut a deal to avoid a government shutdown and voted for the fiscal 2011 appropriation because it contained $38 billion in spending cuts and because their leaders predicted political doom if the government were forced to shut down. Subsequent analysis, however, showed that only a trivial amount of spending was actually cut by the deal, leaving many in the GOP to believe they were sold out by their leaders. They are determined to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Given this experience,
Republicans are disinclined to believe apocalyptic rhetoric about the
consequences of defaulting on the debt. Indeed, some say they welcome it. Whatever pain is caused will be temporary, but
the benefits of using such a crisis to slash government spending will be worth
it, they say.
Republicans are playing
not just with fire, but the financial equivalent of nuclear weapons. Perhaps at one time when the federal debt was
owned entirely by Americans we could afford to take a chance on debt default
because the consequences would only be internal. But today, more than half of the privately
held public debt is owed to foreigners; the Chinese alone own more than $1.1 trillion of Treasury securities.
Moreover, many countries use Treasury
securities as backing for their own currencies. Thus the impact of default would be felt
internationally, disrupting finances and economic policies throughout Asia,
Europe and Latin America .
Therefore, a potential
debt default is far more than a domestic consideration; it is a matter of
foreign policy. This is why Secretary of
State Clinton and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen have warned that the
public debt represents an important threat to national security. As attorney Thomas Geoghegan recently put it, “Where the
validity of the debt is concerned, our national security is at stake.”
Preventing default is no
less justified
than using American military power
to protect against an armed invasion
without a congressional declaration of war.
than using American military power
to protect against an armed invasion
without a congressional declaration of war.
The president would be justified in taking extreme actions to protect against a debt default. In the event that congressional irresponsibility makes default impossible to avoid, he should order the secretary of the Treasury to simply disregard the debt limit and sell whatever securities are necessary to raise cash to pay the nation’s debts. They are protected by the full faith and credit of the
Furthermore, it’s worth
remembering that the debt limit is statutory law, which is trumped by the
Constitution which has a little known provision that relates to this issue.
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says, “The validity of the public debt of the United States
Some will raise a
concern that potential buyers of Treasury securities may be scared off by a
fear that bonds sold over the debt limit may not be backed by the full faith
and credit of the United
States
People smarter than I
am tell me that the Treasury has an almost infinite ability to avoid a debt
crisis. I hope they are right. But I am
hypothesizing a situation in which the Treasury reaches the end of its rope and
a day comes when it needs $X billion to pay interest and it has less than $X
billion in cash. Under those
circumstances, when default is the only possible alternative, I believe that
the president and the Treasury secretary would be justified in taking
extraordinary action to prevent it, even if it means violating the debt limit.
Constitutional history
is replete with examples where presidents justified extraordinary actions by
extraordinary circumstances. During the George W. Bush administration many
Republicans defended the most expansive possible reading of the president’s
powers, especially concerning national security. Since default on the debt would clearly have
dire consequences for our relations with China, Japan and other large holders
of Treasury securities, it’s hard to see how defenders of Bush’s policies would
now say the president must stand by and do nothing when a debt default poses an
imminent national security threat.
Given that the Supreme
Court in recent years has been unusually deferential to executive prerogatives
–I feel certain President Obama would be on firm constitutional ground should
he challenge the debt limit in order to prevent a debt default. Should the
Court rule in his favor, the debt limit would effectively become a dead letter.
Is that really the outcome Republicans
want from a debt limit showdown?
~~~
If the good Lord is willing and the
creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again on Tuesday December 11, 2012.
GOD BLESS YOU ALL
&
GOD BLESS THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA
Floyd
No comments:
Post a Comment