Be INFORMED

Tuesday, May 01, 2012

Ronald Reagan: A tax & spend librul, socialist & open borders advocate?

Dave in AZ for Baja Arizona Kossacks  Mon Apr 30, 2012

I knew Ronald Reagan, I voted enthusiastically for him twice. That's probably not the best opening for a diary on the Dkos to get tipped & rec'd, but bear with me. In 1980 I felt the country was going horribly in the wrong direction and I joined the opposition to fight back. I voted a straight Democratic ticket for the first time in my life in 2004 and registered as a Democrat when I moved to Arizona in 2005 for exactly the same reason. I'm fighting harder than ever today to make sure we don't head back in the wrong direction, that we continue full speed ahead in the right direction by reelecting President Obama, kicking John Boehner out of the Speaker's chair, and increasing our majority in the Senate.

As a former Republican it particularly pains me to see how low former "Grand Old Party" has sunk. There has never in the history of our great country been such a group of pompous, lying, self serving bastards as there is now in the Republican Party. I highly recommend the April 27 article in the Washington Post by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Let's Just say it: The Republicans ARE the problem.

Mann and Ornstein write:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

Emphasis is mine. And brother, did they get it right. Back when The Gipper was President and the Democrats held large majorities in Congress, they played the political game and called each other liars & thieves by day. But in the evening Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neil would share a glass of whiskey and plot how to get things done for the good of the country. Today, Speaker Boehner and Senate Minority Leader O'Connell don't give a rat's ass about the good of the country, they care only about power, their political power. But at the heart of the problem is a dweeb named Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform. As Mann and Ornstein note, 238 of the 242 House Republicans and 41 of the 47 GOP senators have signed Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", which binds its signers to never support a tax increase. But the "pledge" goes far beyond what rational people would consider a tax increase, it even considers closing tax loopholes as "tax increases". Anything that increases a single dollar of income to the federal government is a "tax increase".  With such vast majorities of Republicans in Congress bound lockstep into this lunacy it's no wonder compromise is impossible and nothing gets done.

Let's revisit what actually happened during the Presidency of the great Republican hero, Ronald Reagan. While fondly remembered as an "anti-tax hero", Reagan actually raised taxes eleven times over the course of his presidency. That would include the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which was the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. And the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. In fact, from 1981 to 1987 Congress passed and Reagan signed into law tax increases of some nature in every single year. Why would Reagan do such a thing? He explained it in two simple words: Fiscal Responsibility. Choke on that Mr. Norquist.

While he was no champion of gay rights, it was actually Ronald Reagan who helped defeat the hideous Briggs Initiative in California that would have banned gays, lesbians, and even straight supporters of LGBT rights from working in public schools in California. Reagan's opposition to the initiative was instrumental in its landslide defeat by Californian voters. And of course it was President Reagan who signed the law requiring every hospital, including privately owned for profit hospitals, to treat every patient regardless of their ability to pay. And he signed the law granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. In short, any candidate promoting Reagan's policies would be labeled by today's Republican Party as a "tax & spend librul", a "socialist" who want's to take over free enterprise and healthcare, someone who doesn't share the values of "American families", and is an "open borders" advocate. The conservative icon would be too liberal by today's standards of the GOP. To be blunt, today's Republican Party has lost their fucking marbles.

Want to help the Republican Party? Vote the bastards out of office, maybe they'll finally get some sense into their thick heads. Want to help the American people? Get off your ass and get out there and work to reelect President Obama, elect a Democratic majority back in the House, keep our Senate seats in ND, OH, MT, etc., and take back GOP seats in MA, NV, IN, and even one right here in bat shit crazy Arizona!

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Mitt Romney: Liar At Large

Is Mitt Romney Trying To Steal Obama's Auto Rescue Plan - Then Claim It As His Own?   By cc   On Mon Apr 30, 2012

  Perhaps Mitt Romney thinks that eating sliced up bananas on a sandwich is equal to eating banana bread?  Or, perhaps Mitt Romney is intentionally deceitful with his game of semantics during his Etch-A-Sketch Moments?

     Mitt's Political Adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom is 100% wrong when he falsely said, "Obama took Romney's advise on Auto Bailout" as Mitt Romney's "Advice" was to not give the Auto Industry a Federal Loan while Obama's did. And, Romney's "Advice" would have enabled a Foreign Corporation to take-over American Auto Companies and Obama's did not.  So why is Mitt Romney so confused about his own 2008 Auto Bankruptcy "Advice?" 

Is Mitt trying to "Steal" Obama's Auto Rescue Plan and now claim it as his own?

     To be clear: Other than simply having the word, "Bankruptcy" included in the Auto Rescue Plan, Mitt Romney's Definition of Bankruptcy Plan was not, I repeat, not anything even remotely like Obama's Auto Rescue Plan that the Auto Industry entered into which saved American jobs during the Great Recession.

2008 President-elect Obama Auto Rescue Plan:

- Federal Loan To Auto in order to operate while restructuring
- Federal Loan to Auto during Restructuring so no Foreign Corporation Could take over American Auto Companies.
- Restructure management,
- Retool engineering to manufacture fuel efficient cars
- To avoid Court-Bankruptcy procedures without Federal Loans During the Great Recession.
- If need-be, and since Auto would have Federal Loan, Broker pre-bankruptcy deals for both companies with the major stakeholders.

Mitt Romney's 2008 Bankruptcy Plan:

- NO Federal Loan to Auto Industry so Auto could continue operating during restructuring
- NO Federal Bailout Money to Auto Industry so Auto could continue operating during restructuring
- Let Foreign Auto Corporations buy up American Auto Companies, if need-be

Notice, two key differences between Obama's Plan and Romney's "advice":
First Key Difference: Obama's Plan always including making sure the Auto Industry had money in order to continue operations during Restructuring, while Mitt Romney's Plan did not.  And that, my friend, is a huge difference as Obama's Plan guarantee Americans would remain employed and Mitt Romney's did not.

Second Key Difference: Mitt Romney's Plan included a Foreign Corporation taking over and buying out American Auto Companies and Obama's Plan did not.  And again, that my friend, is also a huge difference as Obama's Plan guarantee Americans would remain employed and Mitt Romney's did not.

November 20, 2008 Mitt Romney told Neal Cavuto of Fox that Foreign Corporations may buy American Auto Companies

CAVUTO: On a day, Governor, we had this huge sell-off, do you think, partly on fears that Washington's out of control?

MITT ROMNEY (R), FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR: Well, I think it's mostly on fears that the economy is out of control. And — and there's real reason for that.

"CAVUTO: The history of companies that file for bankruptcy in a recession is not very good. Usually, most of them fail outright. Those that fail, or go into bankruptcy, and the cuts by the slowdown, can come out of it. Continental comes to mind, as an example ... Your dad ran American Motors, and we ultimately know that, company went into the arms of Chrysler, that later went into the arms of Daimler-Benz, and then on its own again. My point is that markets have, if not a cold, but a very efficient means in handling this sort of thing. Do they not?

ROMNEY: Oh, they sure do, and that's precisely why I am saying, no to a bailout, yes to work-out.

CAVUTO: OK.

ROMNEY: Work with the industry. There may be a merger in the future, perhaps. There may be a merger with a foreign company.

~ Romney Interview with Neal Cavuto

    It is no secret that Mitt Romney's Business Model has always included shipping American Jobs overseas and letting Foreign Corporations take over American Companies -- so Mitt's 2008 comment to Cavuto should come as no surprise.  But last week, did Mitt Romney and his campaign try to steal Obama's Auto Rescue Plan - then claim it as his own?

    Dates are important here in order to make my point that, suddenly, in General Election 2012, Mitt Romney is trying to "steal" President Obama's actual Auto Rescue Plan and claim it as his own. 

     Therefore, remember, before November 18, 2008 President-elect Obama's Auto Rescue Plan always included:

    Giving a Federal Loan to Auto so they may continue operations during Restructuring and Retooling so that Americans could continue to stay employed.  And, Obama's Plan, via the Federal Loan, always guaranteed American Auto Companies would not be taken over by a Foreign Corporation - which also guaranteed Americans would stay employed during the Great Recession.
    Conversely, and 180 degrees opposite from Obama's Plan, on November 18, 2008 and after Mitt Romney's plan only, only comprised of:
No Federal Loan to Auto Industry even if it meant they had to stop all operations during Restructure and thousands of Americans losing their jobs.  And, Mitt Romney's plan including the notion that a Foreign Corporation could buy American Auto Companies which would put Americas at risk of losing their jobs during the Great Recession.

Timeline of President-Elect Obama's Auto Rescue Plan:
November 10, 2008

"Obama Asks Bush to Provide Help for Automakers" By JACKIE CALMES

     Mr. Obama has signaled to the automakers and the unions that his support for
short-term aid now, and long-term assistance once he takes office, is contingent on their willingness to agree to transform their industry to make cleaner, more energy-efficient vehicles.

     Mr. Obama said he would instruct his economic team, once he chooses it, to devise a long-range plan for helping the auto industry recover in a way that is part of an energy and environmental policy to reduce reliance on foreign oil and address climate change.

Mr. Obama has called on the Bush administration to accelerate $25 billion in federal loans provided by a recent law specifically to help automakers retool.

~ New York Times

Keywords: "Retool," "long range plan," "transform their industry" which are all part of Managed Bankruptcy.

November 11, 2008

CANDY CROWLEY: Sources on the Obama transition team say the president-elect urged President Bush to take quick action to help the auto industry. Obama thinks the aid could be coupled with ... someone with the authority to push for industry reforms he has talked about recently.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I have made it a high priority for my transition team to work on additional policy options to help the auto industry adjust, weather the financial crisis, and succeed in producing fuel-efficient cars.
~
CNN Transcript

November 12, 2008
If Congress falls short on the auto industry loans during the lame-duck session next week, the Obama administration has promised there will be strings attached to a bailout for Detroit.

~Politico By Patrick O'Connor & Ryan Grim

CNN Reported:
President-elect Obama is weighing in quietly. I mean, we do know that he was urging President Bush about the auto industry, that he talked to him about a car czar, sort of overlooking improvements in how the auto industry does business and what it produces. He's also talked to the leadership on Capitol Hill about what he'd like to see in some of these packages.
November 16, 2008
OBAMA: "my hope is that over the course of the next week, between the White House and Congress, the discussions are shaped around providing assistance but making sure that that assistance is conditioned on labor, management, suppliers, lenders, all the stakeholders coming together with a plan ... So that we are creating a bridge loan to somewhere as opposed to a bridge loan to nowhere. And that's, I think, what you haven't yet seen."

~
CBS 60 Minute Interview
   In that same 60 Minute Interview, Mr Kroft asked Obama about Bankruptcy for Auto.

KROFT: Are there a lot of people that think that the country would probably be better off and General Motors might be better off if it was allowed to go into bankruptcy?

OBAMA: Well, you know, under normal circumstances that might be the case in the sense that you'd go to a restructuring like the airlines had to do in some cases. And then they come out and they're still a viable operation. And they're operating even during the course of bankruptcy. In this situation, you could see the spigot completely shut off so that it would not potentially permit GM to get back on its feet. And I think that what we have to do is to recognize."
~
CBS 60 Minute Interview

November 17, 2008
    When asked if a bankruptcy declaration by any of the auto companies would be acceptable to the White House, [Dana Perino] responded that would be "the companies' decision."

     President-elect Barack Obama supports direct aid for the Big Three, but he has said taxpayers should be protected too. The hangup is whether to insist that loans or loan guarantees be conditioned upon an assessment of "financial viability" over the next 10 years as under the Energy Department loan guarantee program or not, as under TARP.

November 18, 2008
Mitt Romney Writes: "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"
"Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" By Mitt Romney

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

     [D]on’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.  A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs."

     Notice, Romney is adamant in 2008 when he pens do not give Auto Industry one penny during Bankruptcy even if it meant Americans lose their jobs during the Great Recession.

Fast-Forward to 2012 GOP Primary Election

February 13, 2008 - Another Mitt Romney Op-Ed

"Taxpayers Should Get GM Shares' Proceeds" - By: MITT ROMNEY

     This was crony capitalism on a grand scale. The President tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse. I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.

Before the companies were allowed to enter and exit bankruptcy, the U.S. government swept in with an $85 billion sweetheart deal disguised as a rescue plan. By the spring of 2009, instead of the free market doing what it does best, we got a major taste of crony capitalism, Obama-style.

Such a state of affairs is intolerable, and as president I would not tolerate it.

~ Excerpts from another Mitt Romney Op-Ed Dated 2/13/2012

February 14, 2012:
From Detroit News:
"Romney wrote that the government’s rescue of the American auto companies amounted to “crony capitalism on a grand scale” and argued that G.M. should have gone through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy without taxpayer assistance."
    Remember, in 2008, Mitt Romeny said "Yes" on $700 Billion [TARP] for white collar bankers.  But, in 2008 and still in 2012, Mitt Romney would "not tolerate" Loaning Auto Industry two percent of that ($17 Billion) for blue collar American workers to stay on assembly line during Restructuring.

     In fact, on March 20, 2012, Mitt Romney credited Bush/Cheney's TARP funding to Bankers as saving the US Economy:

    At a town hall in Arbutus, Maryland.
ROMNEY: "I keep hearing the president say he's responsible for keeping the country out of a Great Depression.  No, no, no, that was President George W. Bush and [then-Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson."

     Even now, Mitt Romney thinks Bush/Cheney giving Bankers $700 Billion Taxpayer Dollars (TARP) saved America but loaning the Auto Industry funds so they may operate during Restructuring is "not to be tolerated."

     Mitt Romney is lying with the aid of his Etch-A-Sketch Lens, and falsely claiming that Obama used Mitt Romney's Bankruptcy "Advice" and that it was Mitt's Bankruptcy Plan that saved the Auto industry.

     Even worse than Mitt Romney lying is that Romney seems almost pathological with his lies as it appears that Mitt Romney is trying to "Steal" President Obama's Auto Rescue Plan and claim it as his own.

     ... because as we can see, facts clearly show President Obama's Auto Rescue Plan is not even remotely close to anything Mitt Romney "Advised" Congress to do in 2008 or 2012.

Monday, April 30, 2012

Get Sick. Can't Pay? Go to Jail!

By  Steven D  Sun Apr 29, 2012         Original

Indeed, you can go to jail even if you don't owe any money if the collection company for your medical provider thinks you do:

A breast cancer survivor who was sent to prison over a mistaken $280 medical bill has highlighted the return of debtor's prisons in the U.S.

Illinois resident Lisa Lindsay had received the medical bill in error and was told she did not have to pay up.

However, the bill was turned over to a collection agency and state troopers arrived at her home and took her away in handcuffs.

So, cancer survivor Lisa Lindsay eventually paid the bill she didn't owe + $600 for legal and court fees just to be sure this never happened to her again, or at least for this non-existent debt.  Better safe than sorry, right? 

At this point you might be saying to yourself, WTF?  I thought the US eliminated debtors' prisons in the early 19th century.  Silly rabbit. There's more than one way to trick the justice system to skin people in debt using the power of the state to put them in jail as a way to coerce payments from people like Lisa.

The case of Lindsay as well as others suggests that more people than ever before in the U.S are being thrown in 'debtor's prisons' for not being able to pay back loans. [...]

Debt collectors have become so aggressive claim some that poor people who are behind on payments of as little as $25 a month are being sent to jail.[...]

How is this done?  Well the collection company files a small claims lawsuit.  If you fail to appear, or file a responsive pleading, or make some other common legal mistake, or simply have the collection agency claim they served you by mail (allowed in many cases where the claims are not large) when they really didn't because you've moved, where in the hospital at the time, or they just flat out lied in their affidavit of service, the court can hold you in contempt of court.  And that's when the sheriff deputies or state troopers may show up at your door to place those handcuffs on you, sick, disabled or whatever.

Acting within the law, debtors aren't arrested  for nonpayment, rather for failing to arrive to court hearings thereby falling foul of contempt of court laws.

This results in a police arrest warrant being issued for 'failure to appear', the debtor is tracked down, packed off to jail and can only get out by paying the set bail bond which of course matches the amount owed.

Of course not every state allows such practices, but many do.  And while it has been employed against many people who have fallen behind on paying their bills in this economy, the arrest of people who can't pay their medical bills because they lost health insurance or their jobs, or simply they have student debt. they cannot repay because they can't find a job, is particularly egregious.

And people wonder why privatization of prisons is increasing.  Well, when you can toss people in jail for almost anything, including the inability to pay their debts, prisons become an even bigger profit center.  Last year alone, thousands of individuals were jailed as a result of unscrupulous practices by collection companies like the one that sent Lisa Lindsay to jail for a $280 debt she didn't even owe:

NPR reports that it’s becoming increasingly common for people to serve jail time as a result of their debt. Because of “sloppy, incomplete or even false documentation,” many borrowers facing jail time don’t even know they’re being sued by creditors ...

Sean Matthews, a homeless New Orleans construction worker, was incarcerated for five months for $498 of legal debt, while his jail time cost the city six times that much. Some debtors are even forced to pay for their jail time themselves, adding to their financial troubles.

Stories of surprise arrests for unpaid debt have been reported in states including Indiana, Tennessee and Washington. In Kansas City, one man ended up in jail after missing only a furniture payment. The Federal Trade Commission received more than 140,000 complaints related to debt collection in 2010, and they’ve taken 10 debt collection agencies to court for their practices in the past three years.

Since the start of 2010, judges have signed off on more than 5,000 arrest warrants since in nine counties alone. Beverly Yang, a legal aid attorney, says many debtor’s — and judges — don’t know debtor’s rights, which results in the accused being intimidated into a pay agreement. She’s seen judges interrogate debtors about why they can’t pay more and whether they are trying hard enough to find a job.

From the NPR report:

Take, for example, what happened to Robin Sanders in Illinois.

She was driving home when an officer pulled her over for having a loud muffler. But instead of sending her off with a warning, the officer arrested Sanders, and she was taken right to jail.

"That's when I found out [that] I had a warrant for failure to appear in Macoupin County. And I didn't know what it was about."

Sanders owed $730 on a medical bill. She says she didn't even know a collection agency had filed a lawsuit against her.

"They say they send out these court notices, and nobody gets them," Sanders says.

We are talking about collection companies, after all.  The scum of the earth.  They buy the debts for pennies on the dollar.  Then they file lawsuits.  They don't care if they have to lie or present false paperwork to the courts, because in most cases they are never going to be found out.  They file their affidavits and the justice system believes them, because they do not have the time or personnel to verify the accuracy of those affidavits, and the people they target do not have the money to fight the illegal practices by hiring a lawyer.  And it is difficult to prove a negative, i.e., that you didn't receive notice of the court date as we all know:

Washington state's House of Representatives passed [in 2011] by a 98-0 vote a bill that would require companies to provide proof a borrower has been notified about lawsuits against them before a judge could issue an arrest warrant. All 42 Republicans voted for the legislation, which is expected to pass the state's Senate and be signed into law by the governor. A trade group representing debt collectors supports the bill and says the changes are needed because some companies are abusing Washington's existing law by improperly arresting borrowers.

Look for more of these abuses in the future, particularly in states where the legislature is controlled by Republicans and the governor is a Scott Walker (ALEC Model 2.0) clone.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Personal Data Protection: Coordination Needs to Transcend State Boundaries

Asahi, Japan
  23 April 2012           Edited by Lydia Dallett

With the spread of social networking services on smartphones, and the expansion of cloud businesses centrally handling bulks of user data, the rapid change of telecommunications calls for a new approach toward the protection of personal information.
The U.S. and EU have released a joint statement on the protection of privacy and the promotion of Internet businesses. Japan is lagging behind. We cannot protect personal information without cross-border cooperation and we need to develop conditions that are appropriate for this day and age.
Internet enterprises are competing ruthlessly to develop techniques that will allow them to gain higher advertising rates. In recent years, there has been remarkable progress in the development of technologies that analyze the preferences and life patterns of Internet users, in order to display advertisements tailored to the lifestyle of the individual consumer.
These data collection systems target anything from purchase histories with online mail orders to movement patterns gathered in the form of GPS-tracked location information, or personal connections and relationships stored in email address books. The types of data collected are multiplying ad infinitum.
If we analyze the collective data gathered over an extended period of time, the information accumulated by Internet businesses far exceeds what the individual user is aware of. The private life of the end user is brought into the open and virtual profiles may be created. Furthermore, the data is sometimes managed abroad.
Google U.S. has begun to unify and manage the personal information gathered by around 60 different services and it was this kind of information that caused simultaneous opposition in many countries. Many countries have been collecting data in even more opaque ways.
There has also been controversy about the social network Facebook retaining private information even after users leave the network. In response to this, the EU has proposed the “right to be forgotten online,” which forces social networking sites to delete such data. The Obama administration introduced a “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights” that includes the right not to be tracked online.
Western third-party organizations, which have a high degree of independence from their national governments, are addressing this issue from a technical point of view and are responsible for international discussions.
Japan established the Personal Information Protection Law in 2003, but its implementation is divided vertically across the ministries. It is flawed in terms of specialization and mobility. If we do not have any independent protection mechanisms, we will be left behind by globalization and technical progress. This is liable to gravely disadvantage the international expansion of Japanese businesses.
“My Number,” the personal identification number system devised by the National Diet, incorporates the establishment of third-party organizations. Its main target, however, are government offices and businesses dealing with ID numbers.
It is necessary to take discussions to the next level, so that we can expand into common European and American security mechanisms, while maintaining compatibility with basic rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

   Sourced from Watching America

Translated By Sylvie Martlew   

CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL VERSION