Unemployment is a lagging indicator on the health of the economy. Productivity rises when layoffs occur, which leads to bigger profits and investments, which leads the way out of a recession.
Right?
But this time around, unemployment is a leafding indicator. It started dropping in December 2007, six months before the recession began in the third quarter of 2008. It last four quarters (or one year).
Unemployment seems to have leveled off. But might it rise sharply again next year?
In July, Louis Woodhill wrote that 14% unemployment is possible next year based on federal statistics on private investment. Woodhill is an engineer and software entrepreneur, and is on the Leadership Council of the conservative Club for Growth.
He cited a 38% drop in "real nonresidential fixed investment," which he defined as private business investment -- PBI -- in the first quarter. This followed a 22% drop in the fourth quarter of 2008.
"The unemployment rate a year ago was 5.5%. Because the potential labor force is growing, we need employment to increase by 1% annually to keep the unemployment rate from going up. The 37.9% investment decline reported by the BEA can be expected to eventually produce a reduction in total employment of about 8.5%. Accordingly, we can expect unemployment to rise to about 14% within a year unless the downward slide of PBI is reversed," Woodhill wrote.
So how did "real nonresidential fixed investment" do in the second quarter (April through June) and the third quarter (July through September)?
Not well.
From the government: "Real nonresidential fixed investment decreased 2.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with a decrease of 9.6 percent in the second. Nonresidential structures decreased 9.0 percent, compared with a decrease of 17.3 percent. Equipment and software increased 1.1 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 4.9 percent. Real residential fixed investment increased 23.4 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 23.3 percent."
Looks like that 14% may become 15%. We shall see.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Blow the tanks...take er down...bring on the crash. Where do I report to for my gummit food stamps "Vision" card and free food? I'm sure a new currency will soon be announced.
#2
10.2% official number just out - the actual number is much higher
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/06/2009 8:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I don't know if the UE number will go to 15 percent or not.
What I do know is what I see: Business is up at the moment, but we are still working 32 hours. We expect to continue to be busy, but we also expect business will drop off sharply and intermittently.
IOW: It will be assholes and elbows for weeks at a time and then it will dead as Joe Biden's upper brain functions for weeks at a time.
No loss and no gain,and we suspect it will be this way for many, many more months to come.
And when the rest of the stimulus is spent in 2010, it will have a profound impact, but not on the economy.
#5
It is obvious that 4 day weeks are the solution to increased productivity. Doesn't make sense that some work 5 day weeks and others live in benefits from that work.
Posted by: Large Snerong7311 ||
11/06/2009 19:21 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I already missed Redneck Jim's "vibrant" joke, Large Snerong7311, so it's obvious I'm thinking slowly tonight. Could you translate, please?
#7
He may be referring to the French model that hasn't worked either. The problem here is right now according to IBDThe underemployment rate â which includes discouraged workers and part-time staff that would like to work full time â climbed to 17.5%, the highest on records going back to 1994. you already have 17% above the unemployed who are working less than 5 days a week, part time. Business would not hire even with a 4 day work week but would simply increase the hours of work of the existing staff and avoid the additional expenses - unemployment, workers comp, other mandated health and employee benefits dictated by the state that come with new employees.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are adding changes to the final health care bill that will not be accessible online but may be aimed to appease rank-and-file.
Dennis Miller on Pelosi:
A vote on House health care legislation may face a delay as Democratic leaders admitted Friday they don't have the support of 218 Caucus members, but any changes in the legislation to appease wavering members could force Speaker Nancy Pelosi to break a pledge to post the final bill online for 72 hours before lawmakers vote.
The House was expected to vote on the bill as early as Saturday, but Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said Friday morning that the vote could slip to Sunday or early next week because Democratic leaders haven't secured the 218 votes needed for passage. Republicans are unanimously opposed to the sweeping legislation..
House Democratic leaders faced down a revolt from Hispanics in the Caucus who say they don't want a prohibition supported by the White House but not in the House bill that restricts illegal immigrants from buying insurance through a government-established exchange. A ban exists in the Senate version of health insurance reform.
But Pelosi and others are also working furiously to finalize language to restrict federal funding of abortion demanded by pro-life Democrats. Democrats are looking to add the new provisions as part of the debate "rule."
The House Rules Committee was meeting Friday to craft the parameters for debate and the head of the committee, Rep. Louise Slaughter, has indicated that none of the 104 amendments submitted will be added.
The language to be added -- from Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind. -- would strengthen assurances that no taxpayer money is used to end pregnancies and make the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of such money, permanent, Slaughter said.
If they do, it will mean the legislation is unlikely to be available for 72 hours ahead of the vote.
Without the new language accessible online, Pelosi will have upended her pledge to the Weekly Standard in September that she was "absolutely" committed to posting the final House bill online.
"Without question," she said at the time.
Pelosi and other Democratic leaders had rejected a GOP attempt to mandate the online post, and Pelosi's spokesman told the conservative magazine this week that the pledge was to have a manager's amendment online for 72 hours.
"And we will do that," Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly told the magazine in an e-mail.
But Republicans say any change to the bill represents a broken vow.
"Well, they will clearly have broken their promise to the American people" if the Ellsworth language is added, said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner.
Earlier, Steel pushed Democrats to post any revised versions of the bill online.
"If Speaker Pelosi intends to address critical issues like taxpayer funding for abortion in the rule, they should make it available for the American people to read for 72 hours," Steel said.
"Transparency means putting the whole bill online for 72 hours," he added.
In a statement released Friday, Pelosi, D-Calif., did thank Rep. Anthony Weiner for withholding his amendment for a single-payer approach to the legislation.
"His decision not to offer a single payer amendment during consideration of H.R. 3962 is a correct one, and helps advance the passage of important health reforms by this Congress," she said.
#1
the Hispanic Caucus puts ethnicity (not a "race") above Citizenship. F*ck em
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/06/2009 19:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
They can delay it until h*ll freezes over.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
11/06/2009 22:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
FYI, Ellsworth Amendment has been examined, analyzed, and deemed "3 card monte" shell game with the money -- per the National Right to life, the Catholic Bishops, and a pile of legal analysts, the Ellsworth Amendment is a sham.
It also excludes conscience protections - which are noticeably absent in a massive bill that has things like fast-food labeling regulations in it, 111 new bureaucracy, and half a trillion dollars in new taxes.
A civil war is threatening to erupt within the Democratic Party as liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org looks to punish moderate Democrats opposed to the sweeping health care overhaul proposed by party leaders.
No, no, no, this Fox un-journalist has it all wrong. Republicans have civil wars in which the evil right wing destroys the well-meaning but still mis-guided moderates who only want to be more like Democrats. Whereas Democrats have gentle, full-contact re-education programs for their wayward public officials who have failed to inhale the unicorn poop.
Powdered unicorn poop, I'm sure. The thought of fresh...
MoveOn has reportedly raised more than $3.5 million in contributions to fund primary challenges against "any Democratic senator who blocks an up-or-down vote on health care reform with a public option," according to an e-mail sent to group members on Thursday.
The e-mail warned that any Democratic House member who joins Republicans to filibuster the health care reform measure will "face an enormous backlash from the grassroots."
The group also highlights a letter from Democracy for America, the nation's largest progressive political action founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, which urges Senate Democrats to strip committee chairmanship from "any Democrat who filibusters health care."
MoveOn.org, which has 5 million members, has become increasingly vocal in its threats against conservative and moderate Democrats who remain opposed to the health care bills laid out by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Several Democrats, including Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama, have expressed resistance to Pelosi's $1.055 trillion measure in recent days -- underscoring the intra-party rift over President Obama's top domestic priority.
Obama had planned a rare visit to the House Friday morning to persuade wavering Democrats, but was forced to reschedule it until Saturday as delays push back a vote on the measure.
Among the most heated disagreements among rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers are issues related to abortion and illegal immigrants. Democratic opponents of abortion -- under pressure from Catholic bishops -- want stronger provisions written in the bill that no federal funds would be used to finance abortion in coverage bought in the government-run exchange.
Other than the $1 per month per person in the public option ...
Liberal Advocacy Group is like saying that hookers are some offshoot of the Girl Scouts. A civil war inside the AnythingButDemocratic Party is a good thing.
Posted by: lord garth ||
11/06/2009 15:19 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Fratricide!
Fratricide!
Kick their butts and tan their hides!
Posted by: Mike ||
11/06/2009 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Stalin vs Trotsky
So, you really think that the few remaining classical liberals [aka moderate Republicans] are going to go into the middle of that fight if they don't get their way because of conservatives?
#9
Dem fratricide? Please oh please oh please oh please!
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/06/2009 19:02 Comments ||
Top||
#10
take no prisoners!
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/06/2009 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
#11
How can you have a Civil War when there are at least three (and probably more) sides? There's the Soros Democrats (MoveOn.org, etc.), the Kerry Democrats, the Dean Democrats, and the Blue Dog Dems, just for starters.
What MoveOn.org is doing is terrorism: "If you don't do what we tell you, we're going to hurt you." They, and George Soros, their commander-in-thief, should be hanged from the Brooklin Bridge.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/06/2009 20:23 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Not quite terrorism, Old Patriot, although definitely not gentlemanly.
While Democratic leaders say they are confident they will have the 218 votes needed to pass major health care legislation this weekend, a number of House Democrats, including several from Republican-leaning districts in the South, have announced that they will oppose the measure, which is President Obamas top domestic priority.
The Democrats currently control 257 voters in the House, and one more Democrat, Bill Owens, newly elected from New York, will be sworn in on Friday. With all 177 Republicans likely to oppose the health care bill, Democrats at most can afford to lose 40 of their own caucus members.
They will definitely lose a bunch. Among them is Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
I oppose the creation of a government-run public insurance program and continue to have serious concerns about its unintended consequence for Missourians who have private insurance plans they like, he said in a statement issued this week.
Mr. Skelton also expressed concerns that the bill would allow tax dollars to pay for abortions, a worry that led 40 Democrats to send a letter to House leaders urging them to tighten provisions to prevent federal money from paying to terminate pregnancies.
Representative Artur Davis of Alabama, who is running for governor there, said he preferred the Senate Finance Committee health bill and would vote against the House version.
Because we risk disaster if we get this wrong, I will vote no on the health legislation and continue to root for a final bill that fixes the holes in our health care system and contains soaring costs in both the private and public sectors he said in a statement.
Mr. Davis said he preferred the Senate Finance Committee approach to paying for the bill by imposing a tax on high-cost Cadillac health insurance policies, and he also preferred the committees decision not to require companies to insure their workers but instead would ask companies to share the cost of subsidizing insurance.
Representative Travis Childers of Mississippi said that he would oppose the House health care bill because it was simply too expensive at a time of economic crisis for the nation.
First and foremost, I cannot vote for legislation with this big of a price tag in todays economic climate, Mr. Childers said in a statement. I would also like to see legislation that contains stronger language to prohibit federal funding for abortion and provides equal access to care for individuals in rural communities. My concerns in these areas have not been sufficiently addressed by this legislation.
Representative Bart Gordon of Tennessee announced his opposition in a statement on Thursday. I cant support it as it stands now, he said. I am concerned about a mandated government-run public option, and I do not like this bills financial impact on the state of Tennessee. The Congressional Budget Office has also indicated that the House bill will not reduce the federal governments spending on health care over the long term something I believe is essential.
Representative Jim Marshall of Georgia announced his opposition in an op-ed piece in The Atlanta Journal Constitution on Monday.
Instead of maintaining the status quo or moving toward a single-payer health care system, we should begin a migration to a health care system with millions of single payers, one in which most patients are the payers, Mr. Marshall wrote. Unfortunately, the present House and Senate bills miss the opportunity to begin this critical migration. Thats why I oppose them.
Other House Democrats expected to oppose the health care bill include Dan Boren of Indiana, Bobby Bright of Alabama, Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Gene Taylor of Mississippi.
In addition, other lawmakers are waiting for the outcome of negotiations over the abortion provisions, and still others are concerned about provisions dealing with legal and illegal immigrants.
Some undecided lawmakers said they had been the subject of intense lobbying by members of the Democratic leadership. And Mr. Obama will visit the Capitol to meet with the entire House Democratic caucus on Friday morning to make one last personal appeal for lawmakers support.
The Tea Party holds no seat in Congress, but at least 10,000 of the party's members descended on Capitol Hill Thursday to rally against a Democratic-written health care overhaul.
A plan first hatched and heralded on FOX by iconic conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) grew over the weekend as she e-mailed with a handful of colleagues. By the time activists started arriving at the foot of the Capitol around 8:30 a.m., it was clear no Republican leader could stay away.
Minority Leader John Boehner, Republican Whip Eric Cantor and Conference Chairman Mike Pence all spoke.
Inside, Democrats were working to finalize a trillion-dollar health care bill that they say will deliver insurance to tens of millions of Americans who currently lack it, improve the quality of care and rein in costs both for individuals and the government.
Outside, on the grassy lawn just steps from where Barack Obama took the oath of office, an endless lineup of rank-and-file lawmakers and conservative All Stars -- Bachmann, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, actor Jon Voigt and Mark Levin, author of "Liberty and Tyranny" -- demanded that the health care bill be torn asunder.
"Madam Speaker, throw out this bill," bellowed Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.).
"Oh come on, tell them how you really feel," Bachmann yelled to the crowd from a temporary podium at the foot of the Capitol.
"Kill the bill! Kill the bill! Kill the bill!" the crowd replied.
"That's exactly what you're going to tell them," said Bachmann, who was the clear favorite of the assembled masses.
"She has more cojones than a lot of guys," said Barbara McGrath, who traveled from Troy, Ohio, to participate.
When she took the microphone, Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) pointed to the three House office buildings across Independence Avenue from the rally.
"I invite you, when the rally's over, to travel in those halls, look at the walls, find your (member) and walk in," she said. "Let them know how you feel about this bill."
Within an hour, activists were lined up down Independence Avenue to go through the magnetometers in the lobby of the Rayburn Office Building so they could confront members and staff. Bachman told them to each take a page -- or a piece of a page -- from one of two copies of the bill at the podium and ask a member to explain the text to them.
Bachmann's office and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district office were surrounded by the Tea Partiers shortly after the rally ended, and the floor outside Pelosi's office was covered in pages of the bill.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The tragedy at Ft. Hood will be resolved, let us not forget to prevent this one from happening.
(CNSNews.com) - When asked by CNSNews.com what specific part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance, Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) pointed to the part of the Constitution that he says authorizes the federal government "to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country." In fact, the word "health" appears nowhere in the Constitution.
"Well, that's under certainly the laws of the--protect the health, welfare of the country," said Burris. "That's under the Constitution. We're not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country."
James O'Connor, Burris's communications director, later told CNSNews.com that although the word "health" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, the senator was referring to the Preamble of the Constitution which says the following:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...Although Senator Burris has his head up his @ss, he makes a point I've been making for a couple years now: Congress will cite the 'general welfare' line of the Constitution to justify ramming health care down our throats.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/06/2009 5:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's in the preamble. It's not in the Articles which are the basis of power and authorities of the branches. So, using his argument, why should Congress even bother, just let the Executive or Judiciary dictate it, since the preamble is not of any branch.
#3
The Interstate Commerce Clause (article 1 section 8, 3rd clause) of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court gives the Federal Govt enormous power.
A few years ago, The SCOTUS found that the federal law against marijuana was applicable to a woman in California who grew her own marijuana in her own house. It was a 9-0 decision.
If that case comes under federal jurisdiction via the IC clause, well then it is hard to know where it stops.
Posted by: lord garth ||
11/06/2009 9:07 Comments ||
Top||
NRSC boss John Cornyn (R-Tex.) says he won't back candidates in contested GOP primaries -- but the conservative, anti-tax Club for Growth has no such compunctions and seems to be a-courtin' Florida GOP hopeful Marco Rubio.
Exhibit A: Their new ad "correcting" Florida Gov. Charlie Crist's assertion that he never endorsed" the stimulus:
CFG, which helped force Arlen Specter into the arms of the Democrats, is running the 30-second spot on an unspecified number of TV stations in the Sunshine State. The ad begins with a slow roll of Crist's controversial joint appearance with President Obama earlier this year.
In it, Crist says, "We know it's important to pass this stimulus package."
The voiceover: "Since Charlie Crist helped pass Barack Obama's spending program, nearly two hundred thousand Floridians have lost their jobs. Unemployment is the highest in decades. Personal income's down. And the deficit in Washington is three times larger."
Earlier this week, Crist told CNN that his decision to speak favorably about the $787 billion stimulus while appearing with Obama was based on a pragmatic desire to secure Florida's fair share of the stimulus cash.
"I didn't endorse it. I didn't even have a vote on the darned thing," he told Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday. "But I understood that it was going to pass and I wanted to be able to utilize it for the benefit of my fellow Floridians."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"We know it's important to pass this stimulus package."
Television personality and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee led a batch of 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls in the latest poll from Gallup. Huckabee, ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), and ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) were selected as the top three GOPers whom Republican respondents would "seriously consider supporting" in the next presidential contest. Seventy-one percent of people polled selected Huckabee; 65 percent selected both Romney and Palin.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Huck, but refusing to leave the primary process after he had zero chane at the nomination accomplished nothing other than costing Romney the nomination over McLame. This led to President obama. Romney would have had a beeter chance to beat him then McCain.
#4
At this point, it's as much a name recognition thing as anything.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/06/2009 11:19 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Romney would have had a beeter chance to beat him then McCain.
Romney would have been demolished. He would have lost 60-40.
I voted for Romney in the primary. I liked him. But he was saddled with his performance in Massachusetts. He wasn't liked by the social cons. And he never, ever would have picked Sarah Palin who was the one who brought votes to McCain.
Maybe Romney has a chance in 2012, maybe not, but 2008 would have seen him flattened.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/06/2009 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Huckabee would be a disaster. Surely we can find someone who is not an ignorant creationist?
#9
You've got to be shitting me! He's the best we can come up with?
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
11/06/2009 16:28 Comments ||
Top||
#10
My Two-Cents Worth:
If it's basically winable in 2012, Bobby Jindal will run, and he has my vote. If it isn't winable, he won't run, and it doesn't really matter who I vote for.
#13
Ya know, as far as I'm concerned we have an ignorant creationist in the white house right now, so spare the crap. I don't give a damn if the next president believes giant ducks inhabit another planet so long as: lower taxes, balance the budget, national defense, stop or reverse federal growth, can provide leadership. After we get the present and future taken care of, then we can pick our collective navels about that kind of stuff.
It was the great urban legend of the campaign: With the White House worried, a frustrated Gov. Jon Corzine was having second thoughts and came close to aborting his re-election bid.
Not like a major pol has ever quit in the last weeks in Joisey before, right?
Now, Senate President Richard Codey says it happened. In an interview, Codey (D-Essex) detailed a series of summer phone calls, meetings and the results of a confidential poll that nearly threw New Jersey's governor's race into the type of turmoil last seen when then-Sen. Robert Torricelli dropped his re-election bid in final weeks of the 2002 campaign.
Codey made his comments hours after Corzine conceded defeat in Tuesday's election. He previously refused to discuss it, saying he did not want to affect the outcome of the race. His account was confirmed by other key players, including Torricelli, who advised Corzine during the campaign.
The Torch knows all about folding ...
Corzine's camp and the White House declined to comment.
Codey said he got a call from the White House a week after Vice President Joe Biden appeared at Corzine's poorly attended primary night kickoff rally in West Orange in June. "They wanted to talk about what's going on with the governor's race," he said. "They would call me every week, every two weeks."
By July, Codey said there was concern from the president's advisers as Corzine's polls declined even as he poured money into anti-Christie ads. It grew worse after 44 arrests on July 23 in a corruption and money-laundering case.
Corzine privately mused to the White House he was having second thoughts about continuing his campaign, Codey said.
"He was, mentally, as low as you can get," Codey said of Corzine, even before July 23. "Then this "Š hit. It was understandable he was having a moment where he was saying, "To hell with this.'"
Codey said White House political director Patrick Gaspard called him and expressed "great concern about the governor's race, (Corzine's) lack of support amongst Democrats and whether or not he would be able to overcome it. He never criticized Jon personally. But he said he was meeting with Obama and, "The president wants to know if you might run if, in fact, Mr. Corzine got out.' Can he tell the president, "Yes'?"
"He loves me! Me! ME-E-E!"
Codey said Gaspard detailed an internal poll that showed Newark Mayor Cory Booker and Rep. Frank Pallone about the same as Corzine, but Codey leading Christie by double digits.
"I told Gaspard I was going to be seeing Mr. Corzine in Trenton. I told him I felt duty-bound in terms of being a gentleman to tell Corzine. I sat with Corzine. I told him what I knew. I said, "As a friend, I just wanted you to know.' I said, "Bottom line is you're the decision-maker. You want out, just do me a favor and let me know as soon as possible. If you're going to stay in there, I'm with you.'
"I did not hear back from the White House."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
"There is no real answer (to the U.S. economic crisis) but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles."
A New New Deal under Obama?
December 21, 2008
"Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself."
The U.S. Media Reform Movement
September 15, 2008
"Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism. It is impossible to conceive of a better world with a media system that remains under the thumb of Wall Street and Madison Avenue, under the thumb of the owning class."
Journalism, Democracy, ... and Class Struggle
November 2000 issue of Monthly Review
"At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
Media Capitalism, the State and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles
August 9, 2009
"The last thing we want to do, however, is rebuild the old media system. We are moving ahead toward a new kind of journalism. ...We want to democratize the media system so that people without property can play a much larger role in the media and in political life. The result of such democratization will, in my view, be a marked shift to the political Left."
Media Capitalism, the State and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles: An Interview with Robert McChesney
August 9, 2009
"To the extent commercial activities are given First Amendment protection, it makes the rule of capital increasingly off-limits to political debate and government regulation. In my view, progressives need to stake out a democratic interpretation of the First Amendment and do direct battle with the Orwellian implications of the ACLU's commercialized First Amendment."
The New Theology of the First Amendment: Class Privilege Over Democracy
March 1998 issue of Monthly Review
"Advertising is the voice of capital. We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it. The fight against hyper-commercialism becomes especially pronounced in the era of digital communications."
Media Capitalism, the State, and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles: An Interview with Robert McChesney
September 8, 2009
"Walter Isaacson has proposed that newspapers come up with a plan to charge readers 'micropayments' for online content. Even if such a system were practically possible, the last thing we should do is erect walls that block the openness and democratic genius of the Internet."
The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers
March 18, 2009
"Only government can implement policies and subsidies to provide an institutional framework for quality journalism...The democratic state, the government, must create the conditions for sustaining the journalism that can provide the people with the information they need to be their own governors."
The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers
March 18, 2009
"Venezuela is a constitutional republic. Chavez has won landslide victories that would be the envy of almost any elected leader in the world, in internationally monitored elections."
Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction
June 1, 2007
"Aggressive unqualified political dissent is alive and well in the Venezuelan mainstream media, in a manner few other democratic nations have ever known, including our own."
Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction
June 1, 2007
"If (critical of Hugo Chavez Venezuelan station) RCTV were broadcasting in the United States, its license would have been revoked years ago. In fact its owners would likely have been tried for criminal offenses, including treason."
Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction
June 1, 2007
Posted by: Fred ||
11/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The radical left took a couple of hits on the chin yesterday, losing two significant governorships in Virgina and New Jersey. Add to this the embarrassing outing of one of their WFP endorsed RINO's in NY-23, and this was not a banner cycle for the President Obama's ACORN movement.
The Democratic Socialists and Marxists did score one important win in Staten Island yesterday, with the election of their WFP candidate for City Council, Debi Rose. This is the same Debi Rose who recently exercised her 5th amendment right to avoid incriminating herself in an ACORN-WFP campaign finance related scandal.
There are two reasons this very local election is important beyond Staten Island.
1) Debi Rose's campaign manager was a man by the name of David Jones. According to Weather Underground reporter Thomas Good, who runs a website called Antiauthoritarian.net, David Jones is a member of a group called Peace Action.
Peace Action has a working relationship with CAIR, unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy-Land Foundation trial.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
If you want to understand what is really happening in American politics today, the latest Rothenberg Political Report on the 2010 Senate races is an eye-opener.
Barely a year after Democrats took back the White House and further strengthened their grip on Congress, President Obama's public approval score has dropped to near 50 percent or less, at least two dozen or more Democratic House members are in danger of upsets, and for the first time in this election cycle, more Senate Democratic seats than Republican seats are vulnerable.
"With the landscape changing noticeably over the summer, Democrats can no longer assume that they will have a net gain of seats in next year's midterm elections," veteran elections handicapper Stuart Rothenberg told his newsletter subscribers this week.
"Of the 13 Senate seats now regarded as seriously 'in play,' seven of them are currently held by Democrats," Mr. Rothenberg said.
Just three months ago, Mr. Rothenberg wrote that Democratic Senate gains "in the order of 2-4 seats certainly seem reasonable." Now he says that "gains of that magnitude are still possible, of course, but the most likely outcome is somewhere between a Republican gain of two seats and a Democratic gain of two seats."
Clearly, there has been a significant and surprisingly rapid change in the country's political climate, led by a truly grass-roots rebellion against the Democrats' big spending, big government, high tax policies that threaten to add trillions of dollars to the nation's ballooning national debt.
This week's off-year elections were just a warm-up for what's to come. With 10 percent-plus unemployment looming in 2010, an anemic, jobless economy at best, and trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, the Democrats, and the nation, are in for a wild and bumpy ride.
Among the most dramatic changes in Mr. Rothenberg's Democratic Senate election ratings:
He has moved Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s open Delaware Senate seat into the "lean takeover" column as a result of popular Republican Rep. Michael N. Castle's candidacy that has "dramatically changed the outlook for this race." Mr. Biden's son, state Attorney General Beau Biden, is expected to run for his father's seat, but has still not revealed his plans.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's polls in Nevada have been plunging like a rock, where his brand of big government liberalism has turned off his state's conservative voters in droves. His favorables fell to 35 percent last month, and polls show two of five potential Republican rivals beating him. Mr. Rothenberg has moved the race to a "toss-up."
Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, who ran Denver's public schools until he was appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. in January to fill a vacancy, has never run for elective office, and it shows. A Rasmussen poll in September showed former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton beating him. He is now given only "a narrow advantage" at this stage.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Louisiana, who Mr. Rothenberg says "looks increasingly at risk," trailed all four of her Republican rivals at the end of September. She, too, is given only "a narrow advantage for incumbent party."
Five-term Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut remains on the toss-up list as a result of the sweetheart mortgage loans he received from Countrywide Financial. The Senate ethics panel cleared him of wrongdoing, but the Countrywide investigation has been reopened by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, which keeps the damaging issue alive. Former Republican Rep. Rob Simmons is leading him in the polls by five points.
Also threatened by turnover is Mr. Obama's former Senate seat in heavily Democratic Illinois, where polls now show Republican Rep. Mark Steven Kirk beating the Democrats' early front-runner, state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. In a state where the word corruption has become a synonym for the Democrats, this race is a toss-up.
Another upset is brewing in Pennsylvania, where Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter has been trailing former Club for Growth president Pat Toomey, the Republican Party's likely nominee. Mr. Toomey has been a relentless crusader for pro-growth tax cuts, a jobs message that resonates in Pennsylvania's dismal economy. Mr. Specter, who has yet to convince doubtful Democrats that he is now one of them, is mired in a divisive primary fight with Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak.
There is an impatient, angry mood in the country that continues to grow amid increasing doubts that trillions of dollars in new spending and taxes will put us on the path to economic prosperity. All of the early political signs - including Tuesday's stunning Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey - suggest increasing losses for Mr. Obama's party.
"There is a significant anti-Washington mood out there and significant anti-incumbent mood," Texas Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the Republican Party's Senate campaign committee, told Roll Call. "But clearly the Democrats have the tougher time of it because they are clearly in charge and there seems to be considerable pushback to their policy proposals on health care and otherwise."
But forget about the campaign poll numbers for now. The numbers that are really driving this election cycle are 3.5 million lost jobs, a record $1.4 trillion budget deficit, $12 trillion in added government debt and a mountain of new taxes that threatens to bleed our economy dry.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
RUSSIA TODAY > VIDEO - REVOLUTION IS THE SOLUTION!
Cold War Soviet HAMMER-N-SICKLE replaces the 13 = 50 Stars on the US Flag.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
