Welcome to 2017

You know how the sky is supposed to open up and rain fire on us in 2017, when Social Security payroll tax receipts are less than what it costs to provide Social Security? Well get out your asbestos umbrellas folks, because according to the Obama budget (page 123), its happening this year.

According to the "outlays" section, Social Security will cost 662 billion in FY 2009 (which started October 1, 2008...we're five months into it.) And under "receipts", we see that "Social Security Payroll Taxes" come to only 654 billion.

There is a way to help failing banks and jump start the economy, that benefits average americans, rather that the 20% who control 90% of this nation's wealth. And its fairly easy to accomplish -- revamp the credit card industry.

well, I signed up to "moderate" a house party on health care. But with a twist -- its going to be a "pot luck" dinner as well.

And only Correntians (or those who are endorsed by correntians) will be invited.

Here is how I answered the survey questions

Despite all the celebrations, an examination of the data from key states tells us that voters tuned out this election, rather than turned out for it.

105 million voted in the presidential election in 2000
121 million voted in 2004

so far, with 95% of precincts reporting, only 112 million voted (extrapolate that to 100% and its only 117 million.)

here is data from 3 key states

	2000	        2004	        2008	2008 % counted
PA	4,912,185	5,765,764	5,390,910	97.95%
OH	4,705,457	5,627,908	5,012,434	95%
FL	5,956,243	7,609,810	8,005,681	99%

here are the voter registration statistics for those states

       VOTER REGISTRATION
	2000 	        2004     	2008
PA	7,781,997	8,366,663	8,758,031
OH	7,531,555	7,972,826	8,164,823
FL	8,880,396	10,476,437	11,247,634   Read more…

While there are many factors that explained the “housing bubble”, one culprit is the “new home” industry itself, which stopped building “affordable” homes..

· Nationally, in the first quarter of 2005, 31,000 new homes priced under $125,000 were sold. In the first quarter of 2006, that number had declined to 18,000 homes, and by fourth quarter 2007 that number was down to 8,000.

· The number of new homes sold in the $125k-$249,999 range declined from 34,000 in first quarter 2005 to 26,000 in first quarter 2006, declining to only 14,000 by fourth quarter 2007.

· And for the $150k-$199,999 range, sales fell from 66,000 in first quarter 2005 to 57,000 in first quarter 2006, before plummeting to 33,000 by fourth quarter 2007.

The Villagers are all aflutter because the McCain campaign and its surrogates are are talking about stuff like "the pro-America" parts of the country, and "real" parts of the state.

But you know what? Some areas of this country are a lot more patriotic than others. In some parts of the country, its tough to find a flag displayed on the Fourth of July and Memorial Day. In other places, flag display on "patriotic" holidays is the norm -- the places where you didn't wait until 9-11 to wear a flag pin.

So, after figuring out that his original plan wasn't going to work, Hank Paulson has now decided to reward his Wall Street buddies with a "capital infusion" in nine big banks -- most of which are located in New York City, and all of which have large divisions or subsidiaries that act very much like "brokerage firms".

Not only does this reward bad behavior by the people responsible for this crisis, the likely consequences of this move are pretty horrible.

In the wake of Hillary Clinton's speech last night, there is a lot of talk about how not nominating Clinton for VP is "Obama's biggest mistake". That is simply not the case. Obama should not have "needed" Clinton as VP in the first place, and the fact that he does is a symptom of his actual 'biggest mistakes."

Obama's biggest mistakes, in order, were:

1) Not participating in further debates, and ignoring states like West Virginia and Kentucky. That wasn't just a missed opportunity to introduce himself to more voters, it was a signal to voters that they didn't matter to him. It also provided evidence to those doubtful of Obama that he lacks the personal characteristics that a President needs to govern in the face of pressure and adversity.

The Sunday New York Times Magazine will have a big feature entitled Is Obama the End of Black Politics

Filled with reporter Matt Bai's Obamessiahanism, the piece is unreadable for all intents and purposes. But it is notable for one big reason -- Bai renders black female politicians invisible in his discussion of black politics.

Of the 15 African Americans whose names get a "link" from the Times, there is only one woman -- Michelle Obama. In addition to the "linked", there are other black political figures quoted or mentioned -- none of whom are women.

Two weeks ago, OpenLeft initiated an effort to “diversify its front page” by publishing a series of posts which it described as being on the topic feminist and womanist perspectives on Hillary Clinton's withdrawal from the race -- and why this matters to progressives. After an excellent start with a post by Melissa McEwan, the experiment has failed. While OpenLeft maybe have “diversified” its front page by publishing the works of women (and African American women), it did so at the expense of the “feminist/womanist [FW] perspective.” Rather than FW perspectives, readers were treated to what can be most charitably collectively described as “Obama-ists” perspectives from women who identify as feminists. All three posts subsequent to McEwan’s were either dismissive of, or hostile to, anything that can be described as an “F/W perspective”.

Since VL's thinking in offering his endorsement of Barack Obama is apparently premised on a cliche ('the lesser of two evils'), allow me to suggest that there is another, even more apt, cliche available...

Better the Devil you know, than the Devil you don't know.

Does this constitute an endorsement of McCain -- no. McCain's record has been all over the place...he, like Hillary Clinton, has been running for President for the last eight years. Clinton, of course, spent the last eight years with her eye on November, because Democrats are supposed to be smarter than Republicans. McCain knew he had to go way right -- and "support the President" -- if he expected to win the GOP nomination.

The PROOF of RBC Fraud

A document included as an exhibit in the Nelson vs Dean Lawsuit that was filed in October 2007 in an attempt to force the DNC to seat the Florida delegation provides indisputable proof that the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee singled out Florida and Michigan for sanctions, and ignored violations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

The document is a tentative list of state primaries and caucuses, and is dated September 13, 2007. The listing for Florida says (“P” designates a primary)

1/29/08 Florida P Date of state primary; date violates rules; Non-Complia

Barack Obama is looking for support from some of the most intolerant and corrupt "Christian" right leaders.

An article entitled Obama Meets with Conservative and Progressive Religious Leaders at the Christian Broadcasting network, included a list of "religious leaders" that Obama is trying to get support from...

Most of these leaders are rabidly anti-gay and anti-choice. And they even include one "religious leader" who played a role in Monica Goodlings efforts to put more right wing Christians in the DoJ....

Here's a partial list...

TD Jakes – One of those mega-church preachers who enriches himself (he lives in a $1.7 million mansion) while “saving souls”

How many times can men say that Clinton needed to do what they wanted her to do?

Hillary Clinton didn't need to do anything -- she chose to get behind Barack Obama, which is what she was expected to do.

18 million people cast their primary ballot for Hillary Clinton -- she didn't need to do anything to remain a potent force in the Democratic Party. She could have, had she chosen to, told Barack Obama "it ain't over 'til its over, I'm still the better choice, I've still got more experience, I've still got better ideas, and I'm still far more electable than you -- and superdelegates have nearly three months to figure that out."

But we are now going to be told ...

The “Magic Number” is still 2025, or 2209. But its not 2118.

That’s because, in violation of the DNC charter, a secret meeting was held, and secret votes were taken -- violations of specific Charter “sunshine rules” provisions. A deal was struck among Obama supporters on the committee to completely ignore what is known as the “fair reflection” rule (see note below), and to treat the constituency groups that had provided Hillary Clinton with considerable margins in two states (Hispanic/Latino voters, older voters, women, Jewish voters in Florida, older voters, working class voters, rural voters, and women in Michigan) as “half voters”.

Hillary asked us to go to hillaryclinton.com and tell her what we thought we should do.

This thread is intended for people who go there and tell her to come back here and paste their letters....

mine is below the break

Alice Germond is Secretary of the DNC, and a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee.

She considers herself the guardian of the rules.

Article 9, Section 12: of the Charter of the Democratic National Committee states: All meetings of…official party committees…shall be open to the public and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot.”

On Saturday, a secret meeting was held, at which votes were taken.

At the end of the morning session, a one hour lunch period was announced, and the afternoon session would commence after that lunch. Members of THE PUBLIC were told to return in one hour.

THE PUBLIC, which had a right, under the charter to attend the meeting, showed up.

I want to throw an idea out there.

I'm thinking of starting a campaign to demand refunds (and possibly sue) the DNC for its failure to abide by its own rules. The easiest one to prove is the Sunshine rule.... TONS of others were violated, but they require explanations. The Sunshine rule is simple -- all business is conducted in public. No "smoke filled/back room deals".

Yesterday there were various news reports that deliberations were expected to last until midnight --- and that was before the morning part ran over a couple of hours.

An agenda was announced in the morning that did not occur that afternoon. But a one hour lunch expanded to three hours...after which three resolutions were offered, each allowed only 10 minutes of discussion.

KEY FINDINGS
When comparing the February primaries to those held in March, April, and May

· Obama only gained supported among the lowest income (up to $15K) and least educated (not a High School graduate) demographic categories.
· Clinton’s gains came primarily from middle, upper-middle, and upper income voters, and the “Some College”, College Graduate”, and “Post Graduate” education cohorts. Obama lost considerable support within these same groups.
· Increased support for Clinton from “working class” voters ($15K to $50K income demographic) made up less than 8% of Clinton’s increased support.

[Welcome Political Radar readers. This Memorial Day Weekend, try a round of Obama Golf! --lambert]

PART ONE: ALL VOTERS, GENDER, AND RACE

Ever since the media declared that Barack Obama was “inevitable” after February 19th, based on a two week period when an unprepared Hillary Clinton campaign suffered “10 straight losses”, rank and file Democratic voters have been sending a message. Rather than rally ‘round the “inevitable nominee” that message has been a consistent, loud, and clear message to the Democratic Party – DO NOT WANT.

In nearly every demographic category since February 19, Clinton's percentage of the vote has risen, while Obama’s has fallen. This includes Obama’s supposed “strong” demographic categories such as voters with college degrees post-graduate degrees and voters whose income is above the national median. And Clinton beat Obama in the primaries in March, April and May in most of the major categories.

On Super Tuesday, over 14% of voters in the Oklahoma Democratic Primary voted for neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama, despite their being the only two major Democratic candidates left in the race. This was nearly twice the percentage of “someone else” votes as the next highest state (Arizona, with 7.2% of “neither” votes), and four times greater than Super Tuesday primary states over all (3.74% “neither” votes).

John Edwards received the lion’ share (10.14% of the overall vote) of the ‘neither” vote, and his supporters represented a significant opportunity for both Clinton and Obama. By examining where Edwards did well, both candidates could try and appeal to these “neither Clinton nor Obama” voters.

A review of exit polling from West Virginia shows that Hillary Clinton took advantage of the opportunity to appeal to Edward’s voters, and it was her success among those voters that made the difference between her 24 point win over Obama in Oklahoma, and her 41 point margin over Obama in West Virginia. Obama not merely failed to attract the support of Edwards voters, he actually lost support in the demographic categories where Edwards did best.

While the Obama campaign and its surrogates have been trumpeting the fact that it is bringing in “new voters”, it seems to have forgotten a key component of the “old Democratic coalition” that it disparages.

“Old” voters. Literally.

The Clinton campaign consistently includes Hillary Clinton’s appeal to seniors when it discusses why she is the better choice to face off against John McCain – but the media seldom mentions older voters, choosing instead to concentrate on Clinton’s appeal to “white working class” voters to hype the race angle in the campaign.

The Obama campaign’s use of talking points involving “new voters” and a “new coalition” is sending a message to older voters – that “old” is worth a lot less to them than “new”, that young voters are more important than older voters, and that the “new coalition” means that the concerns of the “old coalition” members are no longer critical to the Party.

And all this is going on when the Republican Party will have a 71 year old as its nominee.

I finally realized why I was having such a hard time saying that I'd vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

I've been voting straight ticket Democratic just about my entire adult life, and one of the big reaons is that I find the GOP's use of its Southern Strategy abhorrent.

Obama's use of race baiting in an effort to create huge margins and massive turnout in the AA community is his own "Southern Strategy." Every time I think about what they've done to Bill and Hillary Clinton in the name of securing the nomination, I feel ill.

So I'm sitting November out if Obama is the nominee. I'm not going to vote for a "Democrat" who employs the tactics I find most abhorrent in Republicans.

Or
Why Obama Supporters Want Super-Delegates To Think That One Person In Anchorage Is Worth More Than 36 In Akron

As far as Obama’s supporters are concerned, a voter in Ohio is worth only 1/23 of a voter in Alaska. In Alaska, 8,877 voters chose the state’s 13 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention, or 683 voters per delegate. In Ohio, 2,194,851 voters chose that state’s 141 pledged delegate. That’s 15,566 voters per delegate.

Aka Obama’s Sour Apples to Apples, Part Four

Between late February and mid-April, voters in nine states that should/could be “Democratic” in the 2008 Presidential Election were exposed to a considerable amount of negative informative concerning both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The negative information had little impact on how Hillary Clinton was regarded when compared to John McCain. But it has had a major impact on their perception of Barack Obama, and on the perception of the relative merits of Obama and McCain.

Overall, the worst that can be said about Clinton is the negative press attention has resulted in more previously undecided voters in certain demographic categories expressing a preference for McCain rather than for Clinton. But Obama is not merely losing “undecided” voters in most demographic categories because of negative media coverage, a significant percentage of voters who had supported Obama over McCain have switched their preferences.