Belgian Dip

 

belgian dip 2 big

 

Donald Trump showed remarkable, if momentary, insight regarding the root causes of the recent terrorist attack in Belgium.

This all happened because frankly there is no assimilation

While this isn’t the only reason that ISIS targeted Belgium.  It is the primary reason why Belgian residents have been involved in the last two major ISIS attacks in Europe.

The unemployment rate for Belgians of North and sub-Saharan African descent is between 40 and 50 percent. Last year, the BBC reported that of Antwerp’s 2,600 police officers, only 22 are non-white. In 2011, Belgium became the first country in Europe to ban the veil nationwide.

Like most of Europe, Belgium does not provide a path to citizenship for their immigrant population.  Instead many Belgian born Muslim languish in a guest worker status with few jobs and few alternatives.  It should not be surprising that Belgium has supplied between 400-500 fighters in the Syrian war.

Belgium is also a mess politically.  They don’t have the public safety infrastructure to track the activities of these fighters when they come back home.  By comparison, the US has maybe a dozen residents who have left the US to fight in the Middle East and have returned.  The FBI has all of them under close surveillance.

In this country, however, assimilation does not face the same barriers, even for those who are here illegally.  The result is a US Muslim population that is generally well integrated into their communities and happy with their circumstances.

According to a 2011 Pew Research poll, only 20 percent of American Muslims surveyed would prefer to “be distinct” than to “adopt American customs.” Half say that many of their friends are non-Muslim. Almost 80 percent rate their community an “excellent” or “good” place to live.  Crime rates in Muslim communities are generally low and the children of Muslims, like most US immigrants, marry outside their community and are indistinguishable from any other US citizen.

Yet politicians like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump call for bans on all Muslim immigration and increased internal surveillance of all Muslims already here include those that are US citizens.

A 2014 study found that Muslim immigrants in states that experienced more anti-Muslim hate crimes were less likely to intermarry with non-Muslims and learn English.

Our ability to peacefully assimilate Muslims along with every other immigrant demographic IS one of the major factors in insulating America from the domestic terrorism we see in Europe.

The net result of raising the level of Islamaphobia in this country is that our country becomes less safe.

Ted Cruz’s proposed response to Brussels would have a similar effect. The day of the attacks, he called for police to “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods.” Asked what that meant, Cruz cited a program in New York that, according to The New York Times, allowed to the NYPD to designate “entire mosques as suspected ‘terrorism enterprises,’” and thus “collect the license plate numbers of every car in mosque parking lots, videotape worshipers coming and going, and record sermons using informants wearing hidden microphones.” What Cruz didn’t mention is that an NYPD official himself admitted the program didn’t yield a single terrorism investigation. What it did was alienate law-abiding Muslims. As a Newark-based FBI special agent noted, the program led “people [to] pull back cooperation” and thus impaired “our ability to have our finger on the pulse of what’s going on around the state.”

The New York police chief said that he had hundreds of Muslim officers on the staff and if Ted Cruz has a campaign stop in New York, part of the squad assigned to protect him will likely be Muslim.

Embracing peaceful Muslims in the same way we embrace any other peaceful immigrant population, is our strongest weapon against ISIS ideology.

Persecuting Muslims, treating every Muslim as if they were a terrorist and subjecting individuals to a higher level of scrutiny and regulation just because of their religion will re-enforce the ISIS message that the West really does want to destroy Islam.

 

 

 

 

38 Responses to “Belgian Dip”

  1. Keith says:

    YS)Yet politicians like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump call for bans on all Muslim immigration and increased internal surveillance of all Muslims already here include those that are US citizens.

    This is NOT what Trump said. Please review his comments. He said clearly and several times “until we can figure out what the hell we’re doing.” And if I’m not mistaken he wasn’t referring to Muslims, or Mooslums, as Your guy refers to them, but rather those from Muslim countries. Huge difference my friend.

    Also I’m defending Trump to you but be clear he’s not my guy.

    He is however more your guy then you’d care to admit. He was against Iraq war, he wants to defend and strengthen SS, etc. he is the centrist candidate they is believe would be like a left center republican just as Bill Clinton was a right center Democrat. He just won’t take all the wealth from rich people like you would. 😉

  2. Jeff Beamsley says:

    YS)Yet politicians like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump call for bans on all Muslim immigration and increased internal surveillance of all Muslims already here include those that are US citizens.

    This is NOT what Trump said. Please review his comments. He said clearly and several times “until we can figure out what the hell we’re doing.” And if I’m not mistaken he wasn’t referring to Muslims, or Mooslums, as Your guy refers to them, but rather those from Muslim countries. Huge difference my friend.

    Though I generally am not interested in doing your homework, here is a review of both my comments and the comments of Trump and Cruz.

    I referenced Cruz AND Trump regarding bans for all Muslim immigration and increased internal surveillance of all Muslims already here. Here are the specific quotes.

    From ABC News

    Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said Tuesday that surveillance in Muslim neighborhoods in the U.S. must be intensified following the deadly bombings at Brussels,

    Echoing Trump’s earlier statements, Cruz said the U.S. should stop the flow of refugees from countries where the Islamic State militant group has a significant presence.

    Trump praised Cruz’s plan as a “good idea” that he supports “100 percent” in an interview with CNN.

    Trump …has proposed a temporary ban on foreign Muslims entering the U.S

    From the Wash Post

    Trump has not only promised to “bomb the s— out of ISIS” — he would also kill the loved ones of suspected jihadists. He would bring back waterboarding — which is forbidden by U.S. and international law but which Trump considers “minimal, minimal, minimal torture” — and would do “much worse” to suspected terrorists. He would temporarily ban most foreign Muslims from entering the country and would heavily surveil and possibly close some U.S. mosques.

    Here is some rationality to the whole conversation regarding Muslim immigration from NBC News

    There has been for several years a “perception that immigration has been out of control is disproportionate to the facts on the ground,” Rosenblum said. “The numbers of people immigrating to the U.S. have been pretty stable the last few years, and illegal immigration is much lower than it was a decade ago.”

    The biggest difference is that the new arrivals aren’t coming — as they have in the past — from European countries like Italy, Ireland, Germany and Poland.
    “Now the total foreign population is a third Mexican and three-quarters Latin American and Asian,” said Rosenblum. “Europe accounted for just 12 percent of the foreign-born population in 2013. It was 75 percent in 1960.”

    Two years ago, the top three Green Card recipient countries were Mexico, 135,028, China, 71,798, and India, 68,458, according to the figures.
    Only 9,552 Iraqis and 1,463 Saudis got Green Cards in 2013. As for Syrians, whom Trump and much of the GOP wants to bar from the United States, just 3,366 were granted permanent residency.

    When it comes to other Muslim countries, 10,294 Egyptians, 3,532 Yemenis, 2,783 Lebanese and 376 Libyans were allowed into the U.S. in that year.

    The only country where the FBI has admitted any gap in data is Syria, and in that case we are admitting mostly women and children who have been in refugee camps for two years. Not exactly the profile of a terrorist.

    The wife of the San Bernadino terrorist was from Pakistan. She came into this country on a K-1 visa. I’ve asked before and you have not responded, why not suspend issuing K-1 visa’s until the immigration service can explain why they managed to miss this person?

    Trump is planning to ban immigration from countries where ISIS is operating, that would be most of the countries on our immigration list except perhaps Mexico.

    So, as I’ve asked before and you haven’t answered, what is it that we don’t currently understand that we will at some point understand in the future?

    The REAL answer, which you refuse to acknowledge, is that this has nothing to do with our border security or our immigration policies.

    The REAL answer is that Trump and Cruz are fear-mongering in an attempt to gain a political advantage. They are claiming directly that Muslim’s can’t be trusted and they are the only politicians with the courage to stand up and say so.

    First of all, this is just a lie.

    Second it cuts to the root of the pluralism that this country is based on. We welcome anyone who wants to come here, work hard, play by the rules, and live peacefully in their neighborhood. We give everyone who wasn’t born here a chance to become citizens. Anyone who is born here automatically becomes a citizen. The result is that our immigrant populations are the best assimilated of any in the world which is why we simply don’t have the problems of domestic terrorism that plague Europe.

    REAL leaders would be sharing that message with their followers because that’s ultimately how we win the ideological battle with radical Islamic fundamentalists.

    It’s also why Cruz and Trump will never be elected President.

  3. Jeff Beamsley says:

    I’ve said before, all broadcast media is suspect. Chris Matthews has leveraged Trump to his own benefit just like most of the media.

    Here Matthews confronts Trump about his birtherism.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/matthews-confronts-trump-for-pushing-obama-birtherism-its-your-original-sin/

    Here he takes him to task over the underlying bigotry displayed at his rallies.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bY40LeMUGo&list=PLPTOHZUig5SjLgiWcJh_pQU-pGpxabEQd&index=1

    As I’ve said before, this is Pro Wrestling. Glad you enjoy it.

    As far as Matthews specific comment, I’ve already said the same thing. Trump is promising that he can make government work better for working people. That is in direct contradiction to the traditional Republican position (started by Reagan), that government is the problem. That belief says that government is inherently flawed and the less of it we have the better.

    The problem is that Trump has not introduced ANYTHING to support his claim that he is going to make government work better. The only substantive document that he has produced is his tax plan which is a YUGE giveaway to the wealthy including the hedge fund managers which he said he hated.

    So though he may be new to politics, he is not new to the dance that Republicans have done for decades.

    https://www.instapaper.com/read/706285911

  4. Keith says:

    You didn’t even provide a direct quote from Trump. Even this link below has a deceptive headline but in the body quotes him directly. This is the original statement he made. Again, I am not defending him.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/

  5. Jeff Beamsley says:

    If you think that any of the sources that I posted has misquoted Trump, please post articles supporting your claim.

    The problem is that Trump is all over the map regarding his quotes. This article does a good job of trying to track these various wanderings.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801

    BTW, it was the same Chris Matthews that you thought was supporting Trump that mousetrapped him on the question of punishing women who might seek and illegal abortion.

    How many more women do you think that slip cost him in the fall?

  6. Keith says:

    Jeff,
    The fact is he said “until we can figure out what the hell we’re doing.” Period end of conversation. You’re wrong.

    Second, and I know you are smart enough to to catch this. Read the headlines “trump says women who have abortions should be punished.” You should see Facebook!!! (And yes Facebook is relevant because that’s the voting public. Most read misleading headlines and think that’s what he said. You have right said he said illegal abortions. The question was asked “if abortion was illegal……”

    Where you and I disagree, surprise, is when something is illegal then there should be a corespondent result/punishment, etc. Trump answered correctly. This is the state of our politics when someone says something that is framed another way and everyone takes it as they want it to be. Trump hates women, Trumps has a problem with women, etc.

    You maybe ok with illegal activity, ie, an abortion when they are illegal, but I’m not. At this point who decides what’s punishable or not.

    So you are officially on the side of lawlessness?

  7. Jeff Beamsley says:

    The fact is he said “until we can figure out what the hell we’re doing.” Period end of conversation. You’re wrong.

    Not sure what about that statement makes me “wrong”. I’ve simply asked what that statement means. It certainly suggests that “we” don’t currently know what we are doing regarding immigration. I’ve asked you to fill in those gaps, and that’s the problem. YOU CAN’T. The reason you can’t fill in the gaps is because Trump hasn’t really explained what his statement means. As a result he has left you and and anyone else who is interested to fill in the gaps on what this means themselves.

    So YOU have decided to emphasize part of this statement that suggests that it is “temporary”.

    But here’s the problem. Until Trump DOES fill in the gaps, there is no telling what this actually means. If, for example, it means that we will only grant visas to those Muslims that we are certain are not now, and will never be, radicalized – how do you prove that? If you can’t ever prove it, then you will never issue another visa to a Muslim.

    The reality is that this is not a serious proposal. It is only raw meat to support his Authoritarian xenophobic campaign. Sorry that you find it so interesting.

    Here are the other things that Trump said regarding Muslim immigration.

    Trump continues to supports his contentious proposal to temporarily ban non-American Muslims from entering the U.S. until we “figure out what the hell is going on” — with terrorism, that is.
    But the pool of people who would be banned has shrunk since Trump made the broad-based proposal that could keep as many as 1.6 billion people from entering the U.S.
    Trump first described his proposal in December as a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Pressed the day of the announcement for whether the policy would apply to all Muslims, Trump’s campaign manager simply replied “everyone.”
    Later that evening, Trump said his policy would not apply to Muslims already living in the United States.
    Since then he has also expanded his exceptions to include foreign leaders, government officials and business executives.

  8. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Regarding abortion, this is a silly discussion.

    Trump got mousetrapped into an embarrassing response by a clever talking-head – Chris Wallace. It’s Trump’s fault for not being better prepared.

    What he should have said is that he opposes abortion, but that it is currently legal. If elected he will work to overturn Roe by nominating conservative judges. As far as those who might seek an illegal abortion, he’ll make sure that there is amble support for pregnant women and their children so that they have better choices.

    I am a supporter of choice and can repeat this pro-life stuff verbatim. He should have been able to as well.

    Abortion is legal and has been since 1973.

    If Trump and you want to speculate what might happen if abortion ever became illegal, feel free. But I’m not going to engage because it isn’t going to happen.

    Instead this is Trump just trying to steal a few votes from Cruz in the upcoming primaries.

    What is MORE likely is President Clinton or Sanders closing the loopholes on CEO compensation. So I could ask you the same silly question. If it becomes illegal for CEO’s to manipulate their own stock price through corporate buybacks in order to maximize the return on their stock option plans, are you officially on the side of lawlessness?

    OR

    President Clinton or Sanders increase the penalties for insider trading to a level that insures that those who benefited from that practice surrender all of their profits. That could be billions of dollars. Are you officially on the side of lawlessness when you criticize the government getting involved?

    OR

    President Clinton or Sanders increases the penalties associated with the individual mandate to be insured to make sure that everyone that is required to gets insurance. Are you officially on the side of lawlessness in opposing those penalties?

    I could go on, but I think you get the point.

  9. Keith says:

    You were wrong because you did not represent what Trump said correctly. As to what it means who knows…

    However if you are going to get on Trump for his abortion comment then please feel free to tell me what Hillary was doing calling the “mass of whatever, or clump of stuff” inside a women an unborn person.

  10. Jeff Beamsley says:

    You were wrong because you did not represent what Trump said correctly. As to what it means who knows…

    Sounds like a little linguistic gymnastics there. If I misquoted him, please point that out. Don’t think that I did. If you feel I misinterpreted what he meant, but you admit that you don’t know what he meant – then I think we are all free to have our own opinions.

    The issue on Trump and abortion was his flip-flopping on the issue.

    As far as misquoting is concerned, I couldn’t find the Clinton “mass of whatever, or clump of stuff” quote that you referenced. Could you please post a link to it?

    What I did find was the following in the NYT:

    “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” Mrs. Clinton said.

    She added: “That doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can, in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.”

    You clearly dislike Clinton, but she is correct when she says that the unborn don’t have constitutional rights. She was also repeating the opinion originally voiced by recently passed Justice Scalia.

    It should be noted, though, that some in the anti-abortion community were torn on Scalia after a 2008 60 Minutes interview in which he told Lesley Stahl that he disagreed with those who thought “you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings”.

    “I think when the constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws,” he said, “I think it clearly means walking-around persons.”

    The rest of her quote says that same thing that Trump, Obama, and Bernie have said. You provide pregnant women more than enough support so that they have choices.

    IMHO, we could make WAY more progress on the abortion debate if we as a country agreed that economics should not be a reason to choose an abortion. Unfortunately Reagan has already set the precedent for demonizing poor pregnant women, so today’s conservatives would rather view pregnancy as a punishment or a crime.

  11. Keith says:

    You missed the significance of hillaries statement. She did not refer to a climb of stuff or a mass of whatever. She called it an unborn person… How many on the left would consider it a person at all. Many left groups are up in arms that she blew that interview much like many think Trumo blew it.

    As for Hlary it has nothing to do with disliking her. I believe her to be unfit for office. That says nothing of the job she may or may not do. Her charicture or lack thereof is not something g that should be over looked in my view. She has too big of a history for me to give her the benefit of the doubt. Not sure we need her life or Bills on public display for another 4 or 8 years. I’d rather not watch or listen to;
    What the definition of is, is
    Take a deep breath, it’s a right wing conspiring
    The parade of women who will not so talking about bills affairs and hillarys treatment of them.
    That she had an affair with Oko
    She was under fire landing
    That Conservitoves views are “out of the mainstream”
    White water
    Her emails
    The hundred or more close friends or associates who dies of unnatural causes
    Travel gate
    Benghazi
    Cattle futures
    Not a stand by your man women like Tammi Wynette, which is exactly what she is. (And to me a redeeming quality) but makes her an A1 hypocrite
    Etc etc etc and whatever new ones will be wrought upon us in the future..

    It has nothing to do with dislike.

    Trumo said “until we can figure out what the hell we’re doing.” Period.

  12. Keith says:

    Bernie Sanders showed up at a picket line today manned by striking Verizon employees. He said/screamed this “Thank you for standing up to ‘just another major American corporation trying to destroy the lives of working
    Americans.'”

    How on earth will this guy ever lead as President? What complete lunacy. There are no words for this level of hatred. His budget calls for how much in tax increases and how much debt????

    The CEO responded to this garbage by simply saying Sanders claims the Verizon wants to avoid paying federal income taxes is nonsense pointing out that their financial statements clearly show they’ve paid more then $15.6 billion over the last two years a rate of 35%. But go ahead and attack the provider of gazillions of jobs, a vital service to the community, a good corporate citizen and huge tax payer. Bernie will not be happy until everything is no profit or state run. Everyone will be equal. Equally poor that is.

    he hasn’t had this much fun since the 60’s.

  13. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Your confirmation bias is showing again.

    The dispute with Verizon is that they signed a contract with two unions on the “wired” side of their business that they now want to renegotiate. This isn’t an issue of whether or not they paid taxes, though Verizon through tax deductions has avoided paying federal income tax for quite a while. That’s why the CEO’s posting of their last two years of tax returns is significantly misleading.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/26/bernie-s/sanders-one-out-four-corporations-pay-no-taxes/

    Verizon made $19.3 billion in US pretax profits from 2008 to 2012, yet didn’t pay any federal income taxes during the period. Instead, it got $535 million in tax rebates. Verizon’s effective federal income tax rate was negative 2.8 percent from 2008 to 2012.

    http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/29/10-companies-that-dodge-corporate-taxes/

    The issue here is classic union versus corporation. Of course Bernie is going to side with the union on this issue and I do too.

    Verizon has a monopolistic position for the provision of “wired” internet service in many parts of the country. They are dragging their feet on delivering on their promises to expand that service because it doesn’t make as much money as their wireless business. The wireless part of their business is less labor intensive, non-union, and also significantly more profitable.

    The union has a simple case. They want Verizon to honor their current contract and negotiate in good faith – neither of which the company appears to be willing to do. Instead the company is attempting to make an economic argument to undermine the union’s position. If Verizon is so unhappy with the deals that it has signed, perhaps they should sell this business to someone else who is more interested in it.

    The rest of your soapboxing on how could someone like this lead the country is an example of your confirmation bias. Someone who is willing to stand up to corporations and hold them accountable is EXACTLY what this country needs.

    The union is standing up for its members attempting to protect both their jobs and their wages.

    Conservatives have been attacking unions since the election of Ronald Reagan. Do you think it is a coincidence that middle class wages have stagnated as union power has decreased?

    The reason we have elections is to decide things like this. You don’t like Bernie or Hillary. You trust corporations more than you trust government. When corporations take advantage of workers, you blame the workers. You are welcome to your opinions, but you are going to find that you are in the minority in November.

  14. Keith says:

    Another example of lib deception. This article pointing out the decption written by a liberal

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/gender_pay_gap_the_familiar_line_that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html

  15. Keith says:

    Your opinion of me is your confirmation bias showing. Jeff let’s stop using that worn out term. Everything is confirmation bias. Yours included.

    My complaint of Bernie is his screaming the words “just annoy her Americsn company.” How hateful!!!!

    I am a union supporter. I’ve told you this before.

    I don’t dislike Bernie or Hillary. I just don’t think our country going to be better democratic socialist. I also don’t think Hillarys proven track record of personal integrity, charicture, or decision making makes her fit for our highest office.

  16. Keith says:

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/14/greenspan-productivity-profit-woes-are-political-problems.html

    Where is your nuanced commentary on the state of the economy? We’re 7 years in. Or, is it still GW’s fault?

  17. Keith says:

    As you surely recall I was calling for Bowls Simpson before they were.
    Again the solutions to our problems are simple. Our elected leaders in both parties have failed us.

  18. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Pay gap:

    Did you actually read this article?

    Your response is why I continue to call you out on confirmation bias.

    What the article said is that the whole issue of pay gap can’t be accurately summarized in the “.77 cents to every man” comment.

    The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers.

    Above is the simple fact.

    It is also a simple fact that Verizon paid federal income taxes the past two years. Saying just that, however, ignores the fact that they paid no tax from 2002 – 2012 even though they had profits in excess of $50B. But when you read that they paid taxes the last two years, you assumed that Bernie was lying.

    That’s confirmation bias.

    The rest of article points out that making apples to apples comparisons are difficult. The best studies show the wage gap is much larger than .77 to the dollar.

    Goldin and Lawrence Katz have done about as close to an apples-to-apples comparison of men’s and women’s wages as exists. (They talk about it here in a Freakonomics discussion.) They tracked male and female MBAs graduating from the University of Chicago from 1990 to 2006. First they controlled for previous job experience, GPA, chosen profession, business-school course and job title. Right out of school, they found only a tiny differential in salary between men and women, which might be because of a little bit of lingering discrimination or because women are worse at negotiating starting salaries. But 10 to 15 years later, the gap widens to 40 percent, almost all of which is due to career interruptions and fewer hours. The gap is even wider for women business school graduates who marry very high earners.

    The conclusion of the article does not trash the concept of wage inequality at all, as you did. It touches on many of the subjects that Bernie and Hillary have mentioned as ways to close this gap:

    – family leave policies
    – affordable child care options

    It also raises the larger societal issues of the role of women and the preferences of women.

    You took a deep and interesting topic and boiled it down to “liberal deception”.

    That’s just one of the reasons conservatives continue to lose the female vote. You can’t get past your own political biases and consider that there may be something here worth talking about.

  19. Keith says:

    Are you nuts???? Really? What are you talking about?

    Libs/progressive scream about wage inequality between men and women. They mostly use the 77% figure. It’s a silly agreement as this article clearly points out. That was my point.

    This article written by a liberal says this number is soooo deceptive. Then try’s tbetter to compare apples to apples. Mean actual women on and men doing the same job. In fact it gets to 91%. It then discusses reason why that gap may even be. Starting wages almost equal but years down the road much more unequal. One of the reasons is the educated high earning women got married to a educated high earning guy. Guess who stopped working or worked a lesser job? This is NOT inequality.

    Did you pay women less then men when you owned your company? I don’t pay them less. Are women school teachers? Etc etc etc. Jeff take off your glasses and understand what I’m saying.

  20. Keith says:

    I never said Bernie was lying. What do you view my thoughts in such a way?
    I was only referring to his tone against a company. As to Verizon and their taxes, did they break the law or did they follow the tax code? What I pointed out has NOTHING to do with what they did or didn’t do.

  21. Keith says:

    Jeff,
    Men and women are different. They will never be the same. To even begin a discussion on equality is pointy because they are not the same and never will be. Progressives may try, and will probably even be successful continuing down this path, but women and men are not the same. Nor are their circumstances.

  22. Jeff Beamsley says:

    The video that you didn’t watch was originally broadcast in 2008 on ABC. At the time it referenced her association with Walmart twenty years earlier while Bill was governor of Arkansas (home of Walmart headquarters). So this was old news in 2008. It is REALLY old news now.

    Has something happened recently that makes this association more relevant now that it was in 2008?

    If not, why post it?

    Here’s a NYT article from 2007 that does a better job of digging into the details of her relationship than the ABC piece did.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html

    The bottom line, IMHO, is that this is just another example of Hillary’s pragmatism. You aren’t going to vote for her anyway so it doesn’t matter. For those who aren’t so closed minded, she provides a choice. Do you want an ideologue in office (like Ted Cruz) who can only envision one way to govern? Or do you want a pragmatist who is willing to assess what is possible and compromise to get there?

    IMHO, the country will rally around Hillary because they feel she will affect more positive change for more people than either Cruz or Trump.

  23. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Men and women are different. They will never be the same. To even begin a discussion on equality is pointy because they are not the same and never will be. Progressives may try, and will probably even be successful continuing down this path, but women and men are not the same. Nor are their circumstances.

    This is why conservatives are losing the vote of women and why they will lose this election.

    Conservatives believe that the arguments about pay and gender equality are efforts by misguided women to assume male “roles” in society.

    Women are not asking to be the “same” as men. Instead they are suggesting that gender should not be a factor in determining income and opportunity.

    There is a difference.

    That difference is choice. Some women may choose the traditional roles that conservatives are most comfortable with. As long as that is their choice, that’s fine with me. But MANY women are VERY upset when people (like you) suggest that this should be their ONLY choice.

    Your insensitivity to the discrimination that women and minorities face every day is the other reason why Republicans will lose yet another national election. You are asking women and minorities to ignore their own experiences and accept their “God given” roles in society. The vast majority of both women and minorities are not going to vote for a party who continues to talk as if their unhappiness with their choices is their own fault because of their misfortune to be born the wrong gender or the wrong color. Worse yet is the suggestion that it is all their imagination.

  24. Keith says:

    Good morning Jeff,
    I see you’re sticking to your narrative. My mind has been closed to Hillary because of the last 40 some years of her history. For this I’m close minded. And this has nothing to do with weather or not she’d be a good president. Would you be open minded enough to to consider voting for Trump? Cruz?

    To women. You are painting me with your rhetoric again. Please stop. I have a fairly high leave position within a very large company. In the suasion planning we do I recommend my replacement. It’s a women. Please stop Jeff. It’s getting annoying.

    http://bloom.bg/1r8zIxp

  25. Keith says:

    Minorities again. Please stop.

    You subscribe to a hateful script that conservatives are;
    Homophobic, racists, hate minorities, think women should be barefoot in the kitchen and subservient to males and the poor deserve whatever besets them because they are lazy. None of those describe me…..

    Let’s review a few things. Here’s who I was for John Kasich.

    Here’s the answer to most of our problems. I posted this years ago, hopefully I remember them all.

    The Clinton tax rates
    No carried interest
    Raise the SS age progressively by 3 years over the next 20.
    Means test SS. The bar would be a progressive scale starting with income over $50annually (up for debate)
    Those over 55 would keep the same withdrawal age as today. However since you elected the representatives that have bankrupted it your benefit will be froze every third year with no increase. This is your penalty for your failure to keep the program stable.
    SS to be ties to Chained CPI
    No “gay marriage” rather a civil union.
    All who are here illegally will have 1 year to register at the post office. (I don’t care where) If you want to stay you will not have committed a felony. You will pay a fine. (Amount unknown) you will pay taxes. You will go through the process of becoming a citizen. Once complete you will be given a card of “residency.” You will not become a citizen. Your children can be. I am open that after a very long period of time you can be.
    I will build a wall at the same time. The door to illegals crossing is simply too easy.

    We will invest in infrastructure.

    We will rectify the tax code so our companies are competitive and they won’t leave for the old inversion benefit. We will allow a repatriation of all those dollars that are off shore.

    We will eliminate Obamacare and replace it with subsidies for those who actually need it. Preexisting conditions will not preclude you from getting Insurence. The mandate will be gone!!!! You will be free to choose what program you want so 70 year old women will not be paying for prenatal care (;-)
    We will help set up a program, much like the cops use, of targeting with data where the healthcare dollars are being spent and offer assistance in helping the healthcare providers understand who and what that should be staying on top of. (I watched a program on this and is was fascinating)
    We will help institute a healthcare card, mich like a credit card, that carries your history on it. This will help greatly decrease errors, increase care faster and greatly reduce the great maze of garbled mess that is our healthcare system.
    We will continue to seek energy independence using “all the above.”
    We will make trade deals that benefit us and our workers. We will not be the dumping ground for the rest of the unemployed world.
    Photo ID will be required to vote. This will happen over a 6 year period. No group is being singled out. If you can’t get your picture taken for a ID card in 6 years then God help you.
    We will protect our religious freedoms
    We will protect the right to bear arms. There will be a five day waiting period to pay a gun and a background check will be conducted. Unless of course you are preregistration to do so in a program similar to global entry when flying.
    One man one vote. Money in politics need to be cleaned up.
    On a very broad scale Our govt needs overhauled, it is simply to big and inefficient.

    And finally, and most importantly, Hillary must never be allowed near power.

    Any other issues and we will use similar solutions just like those stated above. This isn’t hard it’s simple.

  26. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Minorities again. Please stop.

    You subscribe to a hateful script that conservatives are;
    Homophobic, racists, hate minorities, think women should be barefoot in the kitchen and subservient to males and the poor deserve whatever besets them because they are lazy. None of those describe me…..

    First, “hateful” is your description. I never used that word.

    All of the following descriptions are accurate based on the policies supported by Conservative Republicans. Whether or not you personally support these policies, when you vote for Republican candidates, your vote endorses these policies.

    I’ll address your personal agenda in a separate post, but let’s at least review why the particular interest groups you mention are not going to be voting for Republicans. Whether not they consider Republicans “hateful” isn’t the issue. These groups are behaving quite logically by voting in their best interests.

    1. Marriage Equality. Republicans oppose it. LGBT regard that opposition as discrimination.
    2. Bathroom bills. Republicans across the country are introducing these bills. The trans community views them as discrimination.
    3. Religious freedom to refuse service. These bills are also getting signed across the country in Republican states. LGBT regard them as attacks on their civil rights. Many businesses and organizations are canceling meetings in states that have passed these bills.
    4. Voter ID. The minority communities that are most deeply affected by these restrictions view these actions as a racist attempt to take away their voting rights AGAIN.
    5. Criminal Justice Reform. When conservatives CONSISTENTLY blame the unarmed victims of police violence for their own deaths, minority communities that are most deeply affected by this violence are going to view those actions as racist.
    6. Minimum Wage. When conservatives oppose raising minimum wage, minority communities who are most deeply affected by low wages view these actions as racist.
    7. Obamacare. When conservatives oppose affordable healthcare, minority communities who are most deeply affected by access to healthcare view these actions as racist.
    8. Immigration Reform. When conservatives talk about mass deportations and describe undocumented workers as rapists and murders, immigrant communities (legal and illegal) view those actions as racist.
    9. Visa restrictions. When conservatives describe all Muslims as being dangerous and potential terrorists, the existing Muslim community view those actions as discriminatory and unconstitutional.
    10. Abortion. When conservatives seek to actively restrict a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion and openly support efforts to overturn the current constitutional guarantees to an abortion, a majority of women see gender bias.
    11. Pay Equality. When conservatives oppose efforts to even consider the issue of pay equality, a majority of women see gender bias.
    12. Climate Change. When conservatives deny that climate change even exists and oppose any action to prevent it from getting worse, those who respect science are appalled.
    13. Creationism. When conservatives insist that the Bible is the only reliable creation story and that this story must be taught as if it were science, those who respect the separation between church and state are shocked.
    14. Supply Side Economics. When conservatives insist that there is some academic or evidentiary basis for this failed concept, those who respect the study of economics question their motives.

    I could go on, but here is the quick summary.

    You may not agree with all of these positions, though I have seen you defend most of them. The conservative Republican platform does support ALL of these positions. That’s the reason why minorities, immigrants, women, highly education professional, and young people are not going to vote Republican. Whether or not those people also feel that conservative motivations for these positions are based on “hate”, doesn’t really matter. They are not voting because they think conservatives are bad people. They are voting because conservatives support policies and practices that these groups logically disagree with. In most every case, Democrats have earned the vote of these groups by supporting opposing positions.

    That’s the way that democracy works.

    So please don’t try to muddy the water with claims of “hate”.

  27. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Let’s review a few things. Here’s who I was for John Kasich.

    Here’s the answer to most of our problems. I posted this years ago, hopefully I remember them all.

    The Clinton tax rates
    No carried interest
    Raise the SS age progressively by 3 years over the next 20.

    Full benefit age is currently 66. It will increase to 67 in 2027. Accelerating that rate will negatively affect those who are in their mid-fifties and planning their retirement today. You could increase the retirement age for those who are in their 40’s, but you aren’t going to see any affect for 30 years.

    Means test SS. The bar would be a progressive scale starting with income over $50 annually (up for debate)

    Those over 55 would keep the same withdrawal age as today. However since you elected the representatives that have bankrupted it your benefit will be froze every third year with no increase. This is your penalty for your failure to keep the program stable.

    Good luck with that one. I would suggest punishing Republicans who voted for Bush II and the policies that led to the Great Recession. Clearly just as ridiculous.

    SS to be ties to Chained CPI

    Yup, this was an Obama proposal

    No “gay marriage” rather a civil union.

    Too late. Already decided. You can’t UNDO a Supreme Court decision

    All who are here illegally will have 1 year to register at the post office. (I don’t care where) If you want to stay you will not have committed a felony. You will pay a fine. (Amount unknown) you will pay taxes. You will go through the process of becoming a citizen. Once complete you will be given a card of “residency.” You will not become a citizen. Your children can be. I am open that after a very long period of time you can be.

    Immigrants already DO pay taxes through payroll deductions. They just don’t get any of it back.

    I will build a wall at the same time. The door to illegals crossing is simply too easy.

    Sorry a wall is silly. No need in the first place. If people really want to get into the country they will find other ways just like the drug tunnels regularly uncovered. In the next ten years we are going to start offering incentive packages to lure immigrants to this country because we’ll need the workers as the last of the Baby boomers finally retire. Then won’t the billions we spent trying to keep immigrants out look as stupid as it really was. Just fix the immigration system so that it is easier to get into the country legally than it is illegally. Make sure that employers have incentives to use the legal system and illegal immigration will disappear. They come because there are jobs. Its employers who largely oppose a legal immigration system because their costs of labor will go up.

    We will invest in infrastructure.

    We will rectify the tax code so our companies are competitive and they won’t leave for the old inversion benefit. We will allow a repatriation of all those dollars that are off shore.

    We will eliminate Obamacare and replace it with subsidies for those who actually need it. Preexisting conditions will not preclude you from getting Insurence. The mandate will be gone!!!! You will be free to choose what program you want so 70 year old women will not be paying for prenatal care (;-)
    We will help set up a program, much like the cops use, of targeting with data where the healthcare dollars are being spent and offer assistance in helping the healthcare providers understand who and what that should be staying on top of. (I watched a program on this and is was fascinating)
    We will help institute a healthcare card, mich like a credit card, that carries your history on it. This will help greatly decrease errors, increase care faster and greatly reduce the great maze of garbled mess that is our healthcare system.

    Can’t have a private plan without a mandate. The mandate insures that enough healthy people remain in the plan to subsidize the cost of caring for the sick people. In the system that you describe only the sick, the employed, and the wealthy will have private insurance. Everyone else will buy it just like many buy no contract phones. They will buy a month or two of insurance when they need to go to the doctor and then cancel their plan until they need to use it again. Many of the other ideas that you have mentioned have been kicked around for a while. They all have merit and they all have challenges. Since I work in this area, I can speak with some authority that the REAL problem is changing the business model from transactions to outcomes. The second REAL problem is that we don’t allow Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate for best drug pricing, which would then set the price for the rest of the country (another example of the power of the big Pharma lobby).

    We will continue to seek energy independence using “all the above.”
    We will make trade deals that benefit us and our workers. We will not be the dumping ground for the rest of the unemployed world.
    Photo ID will be required to vote. This will happen over a 6 year period. No group is being singled out. If you can’t get your picture taken for a ID card in 6 years then God help you.

    Wrong end of the problem here. The whole concept of a voter ID is antiquated. The problem is not enough people are voting.

    We should set a national goal that 90+ percent of those eligible to vote, should vote. The models that have worked in other countries are to tax those who don’t vote, extend voting over several days, make at least one of those days a national holiday, and have lots of ways that you can vote besides physically showing up at a polling place.

    The challenge is only political. Republicans know that the higher the turnout, the more likely it is that they will lose.

    Here’s a little thought experiment for you. What if immigrants were naturally conservative and would support the Republican party if enfranchised. Do you think for a minute that Republicans would want to build a wall or deport them? Heck no, they would be chartering private 737’s to fly them in and get them settled. They would be champions of whatever it would take to get them to the polls. Not sure if the Democrats would go as far as the Republicans have gone in their attempt to suppress the vote, but I’m sure you would see some exchange of roles.

    We will protect our religious freedoms

    Don’t know what this means. How about also protecting our constitutionally guaranteed freedom FROM religion in politics?

    We will protect the right to bear arms. There will be a five day waiting period to pay a gun and a background check will be conducted. Unless of course you are preregistration to do so in a program similar to global entry when flying.

    No problem with people who want firearms to target shoot or hunt. No good reason for individuals to own military grade weapons. We don’t let people own flame throwers or grenade launchers. Why do we let them own assault weapons designed for military use? Also why not mandate that all guns have to be smart and simply won’t fire if not in the hands of the owner?

    One man one vote. Money in politics need to be cleaned up.

    The only way to do this is to publicly fund elections. Currently have some constitutional issues with that because of Citizen’s United. But it is possible that in this next cycle, big dark money isn’t having the effect that those who provide it may have hoped. The Koch’s, for example, have promised to sit on the sidelines in this election.

    On a very broad scale Our govt needs overhauled, it is simply to big and inefficient.

    Please provide data to support this. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is going down. We have already seen the premise that government should be run like a business breakdown in places like Flint and the Katrina gulf coast. The big dollars in the budget are SS, Medicare/Medicaid, debt service, Defense (15%), and non-defense discretionary spending (15%).

    So where is the big waste? Medicare has the lowest overhead of any insurance system in the country and also the lowest fraud as a percentage of the total amount of money spent. SS is also very efficient with very low overhead. Medicaid are block grants to the states. Some do better than others, but clearly this isn’t a federal program. Waste in debt service? Probably not. The rest is not big government, it’s politics. We spend a lot of money on defense compared to the rest of the world. Republicans want to increase that budget. Democrats including me think it is a HUGE waste. We spend a very small amount of our budget on non-defense discretionary spending compared to the rest of the industrialized west. Democrats what to increase that spending. Republicans think it is a HUGE waste. This is not an issue of efficiency. It is an issue of political philosophy.

    And finally, and most importantly, Hillary must never be allowed near power.

    You are going to have to work harder, then, to get someone else other than Cruz or Trump nominated. Otherwise, it is likely going to be another banner year for the democrats. The Republicans have only themselves to blame. Democracy is a wonderful thing.

  28. Keith says:

    29 quarters president Obama has been at the helm and not one of them with a growth rate of 3% or more. No president can say that. This with historically low interest rates over a very extended time and historic fed intervention. If you are going to lay the economy blowing up in 2008-2009 at bush’s feet will you lay the disaster of a recovery at Obama’s.

    Here’s a statistic for you. Since data has been kept in 1920ish, how many times have we had a manufacturing contraction of seven consecutive months without being in a recession? Zero, never. Why now? In fact if my memory serves me from the 20 min conversation I had with Jason Schenker last Monday, we’ve never gone three months of manufacturing in contraction without being in recession.

    What’s interesting to me, the one area of the economy that did carry the day from Me Obana and without it his 8 years would really have been toast is the fossil fuel boom in the USA. The one industry he hates. Ironic to say the least.

  29. Keith says:

    As to your responses above its surprising how company line, party policy, repeat the montra, you’ve become.

    is not sensible for me to respond. We have problems that are a concern. You can’t even agree to use the word illegal alien. Instead you stick to the rebranding word of undocumented worker. And I don’t want to kick them out!!!!!

    Our constitution prohibits the establishment of a religion. It say no where the separation of church and state or a government free from religious people participating in it. This include ALL religions. No where!

    Our biggest dive ranch is your inability to think outside of conventional progressive liberal boxes. If you paint all republicans with the view you hold of the “official positions” you will never be in agreement with me. Open your eyes. both our parties have failed us. Why can’t you see this?

    We have $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Who’s doing ANYTHING about it. Bernie wants more!!!! My Goodness. Well do nothing for 15 more years then the only answer will be to confiscate wealth. On second thought that’s probably exactly what you want!!!!

  30. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Regarding Politifact, you know how fond I am of them and happy to respond.

    The CBO’s scenario of exhausted revenues was based on the assumption that major U.S. policies in effect in June 2011 will continue indefinitely, such as extending the Bush tax cuts and preserving Medicare reimbursement levels to physicians.

    The CBO also laid out a second, more optimistic outlook that assumed laws on the books in June 2011 will take effect. That means that the Bush tax cuts would actually expire at the end of this year and Medicare payments to physicians would fall sharply in 2013.

    Under that scenario, revenues through 2085 would always stay above the costs of entitlement programs and interest payments on the national debt.

    I’m curious if you read the 2012 Politifact article, and if so, why you posted it to begin with. Why did you reach back to 2012 rather than find something more current?

    Perhaps the reason might be that near term deficits have improved and the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were not extended.

    The bottom line is simple. We have to raise taxes, invest in growing the economy, continue to slow the rate of growth of healthcare costs, and modify social security benefits. Sounds like the Democratic platform.

  31. Jeff Beamsley says:

    The country will have another opportunity to vote on economics. Trump will certainly try to make that a key part of his platform.

    The problem is that conservatives don’t have any answers, just like you don’t. You cluck about how bad the economy has been without any suggestion about what you would do differently.

    Trumps answer is to return to 19th century trade wars. He assumes that we will be able to raise our exports while simultaneously lowing our imports. That’s not going to happen for two reasons. We aren’t going to be able to raise our exports as long as the rest of the world is growing more slowly than we are. Our dollar will remain strong, making our exports more expensive, until the rest of the world gets going again. That’s simple economics.

    The other reality is that we are not going be able to grow at a consistent 4%+ rate when the rest of the world is growing at less than 2% unless we want to engage in the same currency manipulations that China did for decades.

    What we CAN do is take advantage of the cheap foreign money that continues to buy our debt and begin a massive infrastructure improvement project. Obama has proposed a number of these that have all been rejected by conservative Republicans.

    The hope is when Republicans go down in flames this fall, Hillary will have a majority in the Senate and a group of moderate Republicans to work with in the House that will allow her to pass some big infrastructure projects. Simple Keynesian economics.

    As far as manufacturing is concerned, we are poised for growth here too if we can get our own economy going. US automated factories can compete with foreign suppliers. If we are able to generate some more jobs with infrastructure projects, we will likely see some increase in consumer spending. We are also just on cusp of some big disruptive changes in the energy sector that will also drive a lot of manufacturing. It is just not economical to build a wind turbine tower in china and ship it over here.

    Finally, yes we are at risk for a recession driven by a European/Chinese downturn. Again, our best defense is a good offense. Start spending some money on infrastructure, and we will be able to weather the downturn in exports.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-trade-idUSKCN0X21H8

  32. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Illegal Alien –

    There, you happy? I choose to use whatever word I choose. They are all accurate descriptions. I also use them interchangeably. Why do you care?

    Here’s what the first amendment says regarding religion.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    What that means is that the government will not favor any religion over another. It also means that the government will not prohibit me from the free exercise of any religion or lack of religion that I choose. Obviously there are limits to those rights. It’s those limits that we explore through the courts.

    As far as our party structure, I am a big believer in democracy. Our vote is our way to express our opinion. You will have a choice this November, if you choose to vote. If you choose not to vote, you have also, IMHO, lost your right to complain.

    If you do vote, you will find that you have an imperfect choice. Neither party perfectly reflects your position. But the constitution does not guarantee us a perfect choice – just a choice.

    So if you choose to vote for Donald Trump because you dislike Hillary Clinton, your vote is a tacit endorsement of everything Donald Trump stands for. That’s why I point out the challenges that Donald Trump, in particular, and Republicans in general are going to have this November.

    I don’t agree with everything that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats stand for either, but I am willing to live with the things that I disagree with because there is virtually NOTHING for me in what the Republicans and Trump are offering.

    As far as our unfunded liabilities, you need to look at them a little closer. As I’ve said before, we do have an issue with funding SS – but that issue can be resolved with political will. We MAY have a problem with Medicare if we are unable to control the rate of growth in healthcare spending, Obamacare was the downpayment on controlling that growth. Electing a Democrat will allow another investment in changing the healthcare business model to outcomes and reigning in Big Pharma. We won’t have a problem with the remaining debt if we are able to grow our economy faster than our deficits. Democrats are the solution here too because the only thing Republicans have offered us is lower taxes which only increases deficits.

    The bottom line is that Conservatism is out of answers for the problems facing us. They don’t have a solution to control healthcare costs, they only promise to repeal Obamacare which the CBO has already said will make the debt problem worse. They don’t have a solution to Social Security, other than privatizing the program which will only make the problem of caring for our elderly worse. They don’t even have a good solution for the debt because drastically reducing government spending will SLOW the economy and likely put us into recession along with the rest of the world.

    If you want to engage in a discussion on any of these topics, please bring references to experts who support you.

  33. Keith says:

    Without going into great detail it’s fair to say the following.
    President Obama and dare I say democratic policies have double the debt from $9 trillion or so to $20 trillion or so. President bust went from $5 trillion or so to $9 trillion or so. Tell me again why President Obama and the democrat policies are any better the Bush’s and the republicans? On a percentage basis the result is slightly better for Bush.

    Your comments on the first amendment are incorrect. It doesn’t not favoring one over the other it say “the establishment there” which means there will not be a “state government.” This does not mean it will be from religious people from all walks of life who’s thoughts are influenced by their faith. Seemingly a huge difference from what you’ve suggested.

    Raise taxes? How much more?

    I recently had a 20 conversation with Bloomberg #1 rated economist Jason Schenker after listening to him speak for an hour or so. Some of his presentation revolved around the unfunded liabilities and the 2030 date in which the revenue to the tear sure would only cover interest and entitlements and nothing else. This is common knowledge… He was asked who would be better for the economy Trump or Hillary. He said it didn’t matter as neither will do anything for that problem and anything else they might do or propose is a minor detail. My conversation with him was started afterwards by me telling him may concern which I’ve mentioned to you before. It’s this.

    A person Has a large sum of money and retires having invested much of it in U.S. Treasuries at 5 %, (imagine that) SS goes bankrupt as it is scheduled to do so and only be able to pay 78% on the dollar. Will the govt treat all people equally? The retiree makes $350k from his treasuries and collect $2,500 from SS. Many folks will not have treasuries and only collects $1,800 a month let’s say. Will you and progressive/socialists demand the person at $1,800 be paid in full before the guy who gets $350k in treasury payment and $2,500 in SS get paid in full? I told him I believed that’s exactly what I believe would happen. This set him off in a much more socialist direction searching for an answer. Not that he agreed with what he thought might happen but the natural conclusion to what will happen. Quasi confiscation of wealth, forced investment in the government, means testing etc… Jeff your side will win ultimately because more people are embolden to vote in such away. Look no further then my beloved Brazil. President Dilma had huge negative ratings prior to her re-election because of corruption and driving the Brazilian economy into the ditch. However she is commited to the entitlement nature of her party. Weeks before her reelection her number suddenly started to raise again and she won. Immediately after her election they ranked and now she is impeached and on her way out with approval somewhere around 10%. I ask you is she any different today then when I marched with the protestors in 2013? Why did she win? It’s because the majority of voters refuse to vote for the correct answer to the problem. All they want is to make sure their entitlements and garunteed wage increases are kept in place. As we sink ever lower in the USA, the same will happen to use. You can not lift the whole by reducing a few. Show me where this has ever worked…

    So, like Detroit our pols will do nothing until bankruptcy is upon us. Your side will continue with its class warfare and name calling. our debt will continue to go up. Your solutions to everything will be more govt laws to rope all of us into solutions I.e. Obamacare which changed everything for everyone to help a few.

    I’m still just waiting for the day reading from the bible will be officially labeled hate speech from a majority of your side. It already is for some.

    Meanwhile young children pretend are yelling obcentities and making obcean jesters on the road side with their parents standing next to them doing the same at trump rallies and others are destroying police cars and public property. Older white liberals are sitting I. Recliners across the nation with smiles on their faces roundly recalling the good old days of their youth. Enjoy Jeff…

    Jeff, what will you do if Trump wins?

  34. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Hope you feel better after your rant including the whole “your side” stuff.

    You concerned about the debt, the economy, and SS?

    Fine, what is the Republican plan to deal with all of that?

    We aren’t going to make much progress trying to lay blame for who is responsible for where we are today.

    We MAY be able to make some progress on where we go from here.

    So let’s lay them out in order.

    1. SS. The current funding formula doesn’t work. We’ve got 20 years or so to fix it. The fixes are simple. Raise or remove the current salary cap. Doubling the current cap will cover a third of the shortfall. Raise the full retirement age to 70 (as you’ve suggested). Takes a while to phase in, but it would cover half the shortfall. Reduce the cost of living adjustment. That would cover 20%. Just needs political will.

    Republican plan is to scrap the whole program.

    2. Medicare/Medicaid – We have to reduce the rate at which healthcare costs are growing. Some of that can come from pushing care out of hospitals and into homes. Same thing with virtual visits. Medicare doesn’t reimburse these innovations. Also allowing Medicare to set the price for medication reimbursements could save a lot of money. Finally, CMS must have the ability to continue to change the reimbursement model from transactions to outcomes.

    Obama had most of this in his last two budgets. Republicans did nothing with them.

    What are the Republican plans? Repeal Obamacare which the CBO says will increase the deficit.

    3. Debt. Grow the economy faster than the deficit. This is the easiest way to address the issue of rising debt and associated interest payments. The debt does not need to go to zero. They deficits simply need to be a smaller percentage of GDP than the growth of the economy. Every Obama budget had infrastructure investments. The Republicans refused to advance any of them.

    The Republican plan is to cut spending and cut taxes. That does work because Republicans are unable to cut spending to match the cuts in taxes. The sequester was the perfect example. At the first opportunity, Republicans restored all of the defense cuts that they could. The result is that the deficit grows and the economy doesn’t grow.

    So what is the Republican plan to grow the economy? They don’t have one.

    What is the Democratic plan to grow the economy? Massive new investment in infrastructure.

    So which plan (or lack thereof) are you planning to vote for?

Leave a Reply