Really. Democrats vs Republicans?
Why??
Unless you're already wealthy, why, why would you vote Republican?
Well, already wealthy and fixated on only taking care of yourself.
Showing posts with label President Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 1, 2020
Monday, June 29, 2020
Hey, Kansas City! You're Getting Some National Attention!
Yesirree, Bob... National attention to and for our very own Negro Leagues Baseball Museum!
Every living former U.S. president paid tribute to baseball’s pioneering Negro Leagues as the part of the “Tipping Your Cap” campaign celebrating the institution’s centennial.
Major League Baseball had originally planned a public tribute to the league for June 27, but the coronavirus pandemic forced its cancellation. Negro Leagues Baseball Museum president Bob Kendrick told The Washington Post he was at first resigned to holding the celebration a year late before having the idea for the virtual tribute.
“In our game, there’s nothing more honorable than tipping your cap,” Kendrick told the Post. “And once I realized that national day of recognition was going to fall by the wayside, I thought, ‘OK, maybe we can do it next year.’ But that didn’t really do it.”
“So then I thought, ‘How about a virtual tip of the cap?’ ” he added. “And let me say here and now, there is no way I could have done this myself. I could not be more proud of the response.”
In addition to former Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton and Carter, participants in the tribute included baseball legends like Hank Aaron and Derek Jeter as well as iconic athletes from other sports, including Michael Jordan and Billie Jean King, as well as celebrities from other fields including Tony Bennett and Stephen Colbert.
“Today I’m tipping my hat to all the giants in the Negro Leagues, from Satchel Paige to Toni Stone and so many others,” Obama tweeted. “Their brave example, first set 100 years ago, changed America’s pastime for the better––opening it up for new generations of players and fans alike.”
The League, established in 1920, counted among its players greats such as Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson and Jackie Robinson, who played with the League’s Kansas City Monarchs before he broke the color barrier by joining the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947. The league dissolved in the years following Robinson’s milestone as numerous others followed him into the major leagues.
Thursday, April 12, 2018
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Just the Facts, Ma'am
That one guy also oversaw the saving of the US economy, after the 2008 financial near-collapse, among other improvements.
Huh.
Sunday, August 28, 2016
The Incredible, Soon-To-Be Presidency of Hillary Rodham Clinton
...And why it's great for America.
First, of course, we'll have our first female president.
That, alone, is historic and nearly mind-blowing. For all our work and attempts to be modern and forward and open-minded, not only have we never had a woman president but, worse, there are still far too many people in the nation--both male and female--who think we should never have one. The fact that we will is fantastic.
Second, the fact that we'll have two presidents in the White House at the same time is incredible.
I can't think of any other nation that has had such a situation at any time during their history. It happens, of course, naturally, in monarchies that lead their nations but not in Democratically-elected heads of state. It's, again, unprecedented.
And the thing is, not only is it history-making but the nation gets one helluva bargain at the same time.
Like it or not, agree or not, Bill Clinton, as president, was a very successful one in his time in office. Having all that experience and knowledge and his international and political contacts is a huge boon to her presidency and to the nation and our need to work with other nations.
In that way, you could also say, then, with all that experience and information and knowledge, America is getting one incredible political and governmental bargain. We're getting a "two-fer", America, a two-for-one bargain.
Following on the heels of a successful, very successful presidency of one Barack Hussein Obama and the not-to-be-overlooked fact of his being the first Black president, this is, indeed, again, monumental and historic. It's a great day for America.
Look, don't get me wrong, too. It's not like the election is over, far from it. Things could happen. But I'm basing the reason for this post today on the fact that not only does Mrs. Clinton have a lot of support behind her but she also has a great many Republicans on her side because they are strongly and wisely against having their candidate, Donald J. Trump in the White House. It's just fact.
So, congratulations, America. Not only will you be making history for more equality of the sexes but you'll also be getting one heckuva bargain, financially, diplomatically and politically, all three, at least, with Mrs. and Mr. Clinton back in the White House.
Links:
George Will: Republicans Must Keep Trump Out Of The White House
Donald Trump faces uphill climb to the White House
It seems Donald Trump's candidacy is actually even likely making the Republican Party weaker.
And check this out. An entire nation doesn't want The Donald anywhere near their country should he, God forbid, become president.
The Philippines considers permanently banning
Donald Trump
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Hillary on Hillary
First Bill and now Hillary. Both.
Smart, funny, and good for the nation.
Everything Republicans aren't.
Enjoy your Sunday, y'all.
Friday, June 19, 2015
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Quote of the day -- Americans, Together
We need to be and remain Americans, together, first and last.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Friday, December 5, 2014
Saturday, November 1, 2014
Sunday, September 7, 2014
What our corporations---and our food--are doing to us, as a nation
A documentary from last year:
Get that?
"This is the first generation of American children expected to lead shorter lives than their parents."
And this:
"Over 95% of all Americans will be overweight or obese in 2 decades."
And "The government is subsidizing the obesity epidemic."
So you know.
So we know.
And act and react.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Quote of the day---What have I been saying?
"Whatever issue you may be most concerned about -- climate change, widening inequality, declining real median wages, rising poverty among the young, the soaring costs of healthcare, bailouts for Wall Street, the sprawling military-industrial-congressio
--Robert Reich, political economist, professor, author, and political commentator. He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997. Quote from his Facebook page today.
I say again, we have to work--heck, fight--to get the big, ugly, corrupting money of the wealthy and corporations our of our electoral and political systems. We have to end "campaign contributions."
Links:
Robert Reich - Wikipedia
Robert Reich | Facebook
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Monday, January 19, 2009
Worst. Ever.
Worst.
President.
Ever.
Let's be clear on this and let's say it again and again so we all remember our lessons:
George Walker Bush was, by far, outstripping all other Presidents in the history of the United States of America, the absolute worst President this country ever lived through.
The former "worsts" now pale compared to this buffoon.
Wareen Harding was incompetent and there was graft in his administration but not even he could touch the lows of this "leader".
President Harding didn't attack another sovereign nation, defying international law and opinion.
President Harding didn't spend every dollar he could get his official hands on like this clown, and put us into massive, historical deficits, thus bankrupting the country.
No other President put so many people, from the very industries they came from, into positions meant to oversee those same industries.
No other President in the history of this country set his very administration against the very people of the country, the way George Walker Bush did.
The thing is, when Ronald Reagan became President, I wasn't sure we'd live through his tenure, even for four years, let alone all eight.
Not with all that demagoguery and ideology.
But we did.
We lived through it and it turned out he realized some of the things he originally wanted weren't good for the country so he changed his opinions and the course for himself and the country.
And Bill Clinton came in and cleaned up his messes. And pretty well, too.
So we lived through that and we've come out at the end of the George W. Bush administration, too, albeit bedraggled, beaten, abused (literally, physically and constitutionally, as it turns out), in horrific debt, with a sullied American name, but we made it.
And now we have to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and clean up this mess.
____________________________________________________________________
For more information and clarification and support on George W. Bush as the worst President of the United States--ever--go to this link:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804
President.
Ever.
Let's be clear on this and let's say it again and again so we all remember our lessons:
George Walker Bush was, by far, outstripping all other Presidents in the history of the United States of America, the absolute worst President this country ever lived through.
The former "worsts" now pale compared to this buffoon.
Wareen Harding was incompetent and there was graft in his administration but not even he could touch the lows of this "leader".
President Harding didn't attack another sovereign nation, defying international law and opinion.
President Harding didn't spend every dollar he could get his official hands on like this clown, and put us into massive, historical deficits, thus bankrupting the country.
No other President put so many people, from the very industries they came from, into positions meant to oversee those same industries.
No other President in the history of this country set his very administration against the very people of the country, the way George Walker Bush did.
The thing is, when Ronald Reagan became President, I wasn't sure we'd live through his tenure, even for four years, let alone all eight.
Not with all that demagoguery and ideology.
But we did.
We lived through it and it turned out he realized some of the things he originally wanted weren't good for the country so he changed his opinions and the course for himself and the country.
And Bill Clinton came in and cleaned up his messes. And pretty well, too.
So we lived through that and we've come out at the end of the George W. Bush administration, too, albeit bedraggled, beaten, abused (literally, physically and constitutionally, as it turns out), in horrific debt, with a sullied American name, but we made it.
And now we have to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and clean up this mess.
____________________________________________________________________
For more information and clarification and support on George W. Bush as the worst President of the United States--ever--go to this link:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
I'll make this exception
I decided to only put my own comments, contributions and thoughts out here and stop putting full articles from other sources but felt I had to run this one last, full article here, one last time, in its entirety. This, from Paul Krugman that ran July 7 in The New York Times, I think, is just too important and good not to put in.
Behind the Bush Bust
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 7, 2008
By huge margins, Americans think the economy is in lousy shape — and they blame President Bush. This fact, more than anything else, makes it hard to see how the Democrats can lose this election.
Paul Krugman
But is the public right to be so disgusted with Mr. Bush’s economic leadership? Not exactly. We really do have a lousy economy, a fact of which Mr. Bush seems spectacularly unaware. But that’s not the same thing as saying that the bad economy is Mr. Bush’s fault.
On the other hand, there’s a certain rough justice in the public’s attitude. Other politicians besides Mr. Bush share the blame for the mess we’re in — but most of them are Republicans.
First things first: pay no attention to apologists who try to defend the Bush economic record. Since 2001, economic conditions have alternated between so-so and outright bad: a recession, followed by one of the weakest expansions since World War II, and then by a renewed job slump that isn’t officially a recession yet, but certainly feels like one.
Over all, Mr. Bush will be lucky to leave office with a net gain of five million jobs, far short of the number needed to keep up with population growth. For comparison, Bill Clinton presided over an economy that added 22 million jobs.
And what does Mr. Bush have to say about this dismal record? “I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they’ll recognize tax cuts work.” Clueless to the end.
Yet even liberal economists have a hard time arguing that Mr. Bush’s cluelessness actually caused the poor economic performance on his watch. Tax cuts didn’t work, but they didn’t create the Bush bust. So what did?
At the top of my list of causes for the lousy economy are three factors: the housing bubble and its aftermath, rising health care costs and soaring raw materials prices. I’ve written a lot about housing, so today let’s talk about the others.
Most public discussion of health care focuses on the problems of the uninsured and underinsured. But insurance premiums are also a major business expense: auto makers famously spend more on health care than they do on steel.
One of the underemphasized keys to the Clinton boom, I’d argue, was the way the cost disease of health care went into remission between 1993 and 2000. For a while, the spread of managed care put a lid on premiums, encouraging companies to expand their work forces.
But premiums surged again after 2000, imposing huge new burdens on business. It’s a good bet that this played an important role in weak job creation.
What about raw materials prices? During the Clinton years basic commodities stayed cheap by historical standards. Since then, however, food and energy prices have exploded, directly lopping about 5 percent off the typical American family’s real income, and raising business costs throughout the economy.
Much of this pain could have been avoided.
If Bill Clinton’s attempt to reform health care had succeeded, the U.S. economy would be in much better shape today. But the attempt failed — and let’s remember why. Yes, the Clinton administration botched the politics. But it was Republicans in Congress who blocked reform, as Newt Gingrich pursued a strategy of “coagulation” designed to “clot everyone away” from Mr. Clinton.
As for high food and fuel prices, they’re mainly the result of growing demand from China and other emerging economies. But oil prices wouldn’t be as high as they are, and the United States would have been much less vulnerable to the current price spike, if we had taken steps in the past to limit our oil consumption.
Mr. Bush certainly deserves some blame here, and not just for his destructive embrace of ethanol as the answer to our energy problems. After 9/11 he could easily have called for higher gas taxes and fuel efficiency standards as a national security measure, but the thought never seems to have crossed his mind.
Still, in energy as in health care the biggest missed opportunities came 15 or more years ago, when Mr. Gingrich and other conservative Republicans in Congress, aided by Democrats with ties to energy-intensive industries, blocked conservation measures.
So here’s the bottom line: Mr. Bush deserves some blame for the poor performance of the economy on his watch, but much of the blame lies with other, earlier political figures, who squandered chances for reform. As it happens, however, most though not all of the politicians responsible for our current economic difficulties were Republicans.
And bear in mind that John McCain has gone to great lengths to affirm his support for Republican economic orthodoxy. So he’ll have no reason to complain if, as seems likely, the economy costs him the election.
Behind the Bush Bust
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 7, 2008
By huge margins, Americans think the economy is in lousy shape — and they blame President Bush. This fact, more than anything else, makes it hard to see how the Democrats can lose this election.
Paul Krugman
But is the public right to be so disgusted with Mr. Bush’s economic leadership? Not exactly. We really do have a lousy economy, a fact of which Mr. Bush seems spectacularly unaware. But that’s not the same thing as saying that the bad economy is Mr. Bush’s fault.
On the other hand, there’s a certain rough justice in the public’s attitude. Other politicians besides Mr. Bush share the blame for the mess we’re in — but most of them are Republicans.
First things first: pay no attention to apologists who try to defend the Bush economic record. Since 2001, economic conditions have alternated between so-so and outright bad: a recession, followed by one of the weakest expansions since World War II, and then by a renewed job slump that isn’t officially a recession yet, but certainly feels like one.
Over all, Mr. Bush will be lucky to leave office with a net gain of five million jobs, far short of the number needed to keep up with population growth. For comparison, Bill Clinton presided over an economy that added 22 million jobs.
And what does Mr. Bush have to say about this dismal record? “I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they’ll recognize tax cuts work.” Clueless to the end.
Yet even liberal economists have a hard time arguing that Mr. Bush’s cluelessness actually caused the poor economic performance on his watch. Tax cuts didn’t work, but they didn’t create the Bush bust. So what did?
At the top of my list of causes for the lousy economy are three factors: the housing bubble and its aftermath, rising health care costs and soaring raw materials prices. I’ve written a lot about housing, so today let’s talk about the others.
Most public discussion of health care focuses on the problems of the uninsured and underinsured. But insurance premiums are also a major business expense: auto makers famously spend more on health care than they do on steel.
One of the underemphasized keys to the Clinton boom, I’d argue, was the way the cost disease of health care went into remission between 1993 and 2000. For a while, the spread of managed care put a lid on premiums, encouraging companies to expand their work forces.
But premiums surged again after 2000, imposing huge new burdens on business. It’s a good bet that this played an important role in weak job creation.
What about raw materials prices? During the Clinton years basic commodities stayed cheap by historical standards. Since then, however, food and energy prices have exploded, directly lopping about 5 percent off the typical American family’s real income, and raising business costs throughout the economy.
Much of this pain could have been avoided.
If Bill Clinton’s attempt to reform health care had succeeded, the U.S. economy would be in much better shape today. But the attempt failed — and let’s remember why. Yes, the Clinton administration botched the politics. But it was Republicans in Congress who blocked reform, as Newt Gingrich pursued a strategy of “coagulation” designed to “clot everyone away” from Mr. Clinton.
As for high food and fuel prices, they’re mainly the result of growing demand from China and other emerging economies. But oil prices wouldn’t be as high as they are, and the United States would have been much less vulnerable to the current price spike, if we had taken steps in the past to limit our oil consumption.
Mr. Bush certainly deserves some blame here, and not just for his destructive embrace of ethanol as the answer to our energy problems. After 9/11 he could easily have called for higher gas taxes and fuel efficiency standards as a national security measure, but the thought never seems to have crossed his mind.
Still, in energy as in health care the biggest missed opportunities came 15 or more years ago, when Mr. Gingrich and other conservative Republicans in Congress, aided by Democrats with ties to energy-intensive industries, blocked conservation measures.
So here’s the bottom line: Mr. Bush deserves some blame for the poor performance of the economy on his watch, but much of the blame lies with other, earlier political figures, who squandered chances for reform. As it happens, however, most though not all of the politicians responsible for our current economic difficulties were Republicans.
And bear in mind that John McCain has gone to great lengths to affirm his support for Republican economic orthodoxy. So he’ll have no reason to complain if, as seems likely, the economy costs him the election.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Just received this
As I said, I just got this from a friend, Preston, and had to put it up:
Maybe if we read and thought a little more before we acted?
The following is from an essay written in 1998 by John Basil Utley.
More starvation and disease or bombers and cruise missiles--these are the only actual choices Washington offers Iraq. No wonder Saddam will risk being bombed to end the economic blockade.... Also Washington demands "proving a negative," that Iraq has nothing hidden and will not in the future rebuild its weapons of mass destruction. At other times it says the blockade must remain until the starvation ridden Iraqis succeed in overthrowing their dictator.
Yet Iraq has only refused the continuation of inspections until the lifting of the blockade, one of the most severe in modern history, according to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The blockade prohibits almost all imports except food and medicine and then leaves Iraq with barely half the proceeds of its limited oil export revenue, and the money is allocated by a United Nations' bureaucracy (slowly while the people starve)....
Washington keeps moving the goal posts demanding an interminable blockade for the nation where already in the last 8 years 1,200,000 have died from starvation and disease. This after the American bombing of the sanitation, electric, and economic infrastructure of the nation in l990. Even now Washington prevents Iraq from obtaining repair parts for its oil production so it can sell some oil for food imports and to repair its irrigation and sanitation systems....
Bombing will generate more hatred for America in the Moslem world and badly weaken our moral authority in the world as we are seen mainly as hypocrites. Also it will cause other nations' terrorists to claim justification for killing American civilians anywhere and cause them to try to develop biological and chemical weapons as the only way to be able to fight back against us, possibly by bringing the battle to the American homeland.
One of the first casualties will be our own freedoms, as the government chases threats of terrorism here. Already the FBI was just legislated "emergency" warrantless wiretap authority to cover whole regions. Two years ago the Clinton Crime Bill (supported by the Republican leadership) proposed gutting the 4th Amendment which prohibits warrantless searches of private homes.
Iraq never harmed America and is no threat to America. As far as the defense of Israel, that nation has atom bombs and the most modern weapons in the Middle East. It has often proven that it can well defend itself.
Yet it is above all a moral question for Americans. Never before have we put such a blockade to leave millions of innocent people in starvation and misery for years on end. Publicly Washington calls on the Iraqi people to overthrow their dictator, Saddam Hussein, as the price of relieving sanctions. But they obviously can't.
Yet America's Secretary of State explained that "yes, we think the price is worth it" when asked on CBS 60 Minutes program (5/11/96) if maintaining the blockade was worth the death of half a million children.
It is high time to question the cost of what we are doing to the Iraqi people....
Maybe if we read and thought a little more before we acted?
The following is from an essay written in 1998 by John Basil Utley.
More starvation and disease or bombers and cruise missiles--these are the only actual choices Washington offers Iraq. No wonder Saddam will risk being bombed to end the economic blockade.... Also Washington demands "proving a negative," that Iraq has nothing hidden and will not in the future rebuild its weapons of mass destruction. At other times it says the blockade must remain until the starvation ridden Iraqis succeed in overthrowing their dictator.
Yet Iraq has only refused the continuation of inspections until the lifting of the blockade, one of the most severe in modern history, according to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The blockade prohibits almost all imports except food and medicine and then leaves Iraq with barely half the proceeds of its limited oil export revenue, and the money is allocated by a United Nations' bureaucracy (slowly while the people starve)....
Washington keeps moving the goal posts demanding an interminable blockade for the nation where already in the last 8 years 1,200,000 have died from starvation and disease. This after the American bombing of the sanitation, electric, and economic infrastructure of the nation in l990. Even now Washington prevents Iraq from obtaining repair parts for its oil production so it can sell some oil for food imports and to repair its irrigation and sanitation systems....
Bombing will generate more hatred for America in the Moslem world and badly weaken our moral authority in the world as we are seen mainly as hypocrites. Also it will cause other nations' terrorists to claim justification for killing American civilians anywhere and cause them to try to develop biological and chemical weapons as the only way to be able to fight back against us, possibly by bringing the battle to the American homeland.
One of the first casualties will be our own freedoms, as the government chases threats of terrorism here. Already the FBI was just legislated "emergency" warrantless wiretap authority to cover whole regions. Two years ago the Clinton Crime Bill (supported by the Republican leadership) proposed gutting the 4th Amendment which prohibits warrantless searches of private homes.
Iraq never harmed America and is no threat to America. As far as the defense of Israel, that nation has atom bombs and the most modern weapons in the Middle East. It has often proven that it can well defend itself.
Yet it is above all a moral question for Americans. Never before have we put such a blockade to leave millions of innocent people in starvation and misery for years on end. Publicly Washington calls on the Iraqi people to overthrow their dictator, Saddam Hussein, as the price of relieving sanctions. But they obviously can't.
Yet America's Secretary of State explained that "yes, we think the price is worth it" when asked on CBS 60 Minutes program (5/11/96) if maintaining the blockade was worth the death of half a million children.
It is high time to question the cost of what we are doing to the Iraqi people....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
