I really would like to see two rules implemented in the Administration's Homeowner Stability Initiative procedures, in addition to payments lowered to 31% of income.
First, no tax deductions for interest on bailed out mortgages. That would make the rest of us cover the sin twice.
Second, if and when a bailed out property gets sold for more than the mortgage principal, the "profit" gets taxed at 100%, until the incentives are paid back. Those incentives, of a thousand dollars here and there, are our tax dollars! They need to be paid back to the Treasury, not end up as "somebody's slick move".
The implementation rules must contain assurances that the $75 billion gets paid back by those who got bailed out, not by our children.
Mr. Geithner has several months for developing the implementation rules. The money comes out of TARP, which means he can do pretty much whatever he wants. Such rules should not be a problem for him, and it would be very reassuring, and FAIR, for those of us with the "responsible gene".
Just a reminder about the Extended Post feature when you write a blog entry. Sometimes a blog entry can take up the entire first page on Community Blogs, especially the entries that contain lots of graphics, crowding out other blog entries posted simultaneously, It is a common courtesy to put just a paragraph or two in the main part of the blog entry, and the rest in the Extended Post section.
Hey, all. When you post, there is a box for the first paragraph or so of your post. Then there's a box, labeled "Extended Post Text", for the rest of your post. Not everyone wants to read pages and pages of your post. That is the point of only posting a small portion of your post in the first box.
In the long list of blog entries, anything posted in the first box appears. So if you don't use the Extended Post Text box, you may be posting pages and pages of text which many people will not want to wade through. What people want to see are summaries or introductions, so they can choose which ones to read quickly.
Thank you!
There are four crucial weeks left to the American elections, a very long time to test political fortunes. To the Democrats it must feel like the end is so tantalisingly near yet so achingly far away, in view of what is possible for both sides of the race up to then. Already, the Republicans are baring their nasty fangs. Bereft of innovative ideas, deprived of any real leadership and with no obvious solutions to any of the country's pressing problems (goodness knows there are many!), the intreprid Republicans, headed by John MCcain and Sarah Palin, have decided to take leave of their collective senses and get stuck into the mud instead.
The problem with accusing your opponent of anything at all that smacks of smear, slander or simple nastiness, is that two can play the same game. Having been in the line of 'terrorist for friend' fire all weekend, Barack Obama's team is now hitting back with a short documentary about McCain and Keating, an association that would have been better left unearthed in view of what is happening in the current economic meltdown.
Aloha!
It looks like nice weather for tomorrow's (Tuesday's) Ukes for Obama Uke Jam in Madison Square Park (23rd Street at Madison Ave., NYC).
I just wanted to add a couple of notes. We don't expect a HUGE turnout, but for legal reasons we must limit the gathering to 20 people maximum. Otherwise, we have to get a permit from the Parks Department. Also, it is against the law to use any amplified mikes or instruments without a permit, so we'll be totally UNPLUGGED.
That means, leave your electric uke at home and enjoy the acoustic vibe.
If you still haven't done so, go to our profile page and download the song "Aloha Mama, We're Voting for Obama" along with the lyrics and chord sheet so you can play along.
And, we'll be playing lots of other songs too, so bring your own sheet music (make a few copies if possible) and be prepared to sing.
Hope to see you there!
Hilo Greg
I would like to compliment the Obama supporters who were in attendance at the Rules & Bylaws Committee Meeting (RBC) in Washington DC this past Saturday. Under a continuous, ever-increasing barrage of hyper-emotion from opposition demonstrators, these people stayed cool, calm and mature. As I watched at home with my heart pounding, gut twisting and blood racing, and, yes, shouted a few times at the TV, I marveled too at the sight of others' composure. At their amazing grace.
These people followed the request that was made by the campaign that supporters refrain from negative demonstration on the day of the RBC. As a country we have already learned much from the example set throughout this campaign by Barack Obama. And as we continue on to the General Election and the Presidency, we will, no doubt, get a chance to learn much more about remaining calm in the face of opposition.
--Nancy Lloyd 06/02/08
Years ago I took a Supervision course at Harvard Divinity School. During the section on sexual harassment, instructor Dudley Rose used the phrase "self-seduction" to explain how a harasser convinces him- or herself that their victim really *does* want all their attention. Despite all the contradictory evidence that everyone else sees clearly, the harasser accepts the basic lie of their attractiveness as true then uses their belief in that lie as the basis and justification for all their future action toward the victim.
Though I haven't yet read Scott McLellan's book about his stint in the White House, the comments he's made on TV interviews confirm my belief that George W. Bush and his admininstration have seduced themselves into believing a basic lie and are not able to see the error in their thinking because if they did they would have to go back and realize that their entire action in Iraq is built on a basic lie... that Iraq was ever a threat to the United States. They would have to confess that their own ultimate motives had nothing to do with what was good for the country, but rather with what they believed was good for them personally and professionally.
Imagine my surprise, then, to be watching the proceedings of the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee re: Florida/Michigan and seeing the glaring self-seduction at work in the Clinton campaign. This, I realized, is why I am so passionately opposed to the thought of her presidency. Her White House would be no different than George Bush's in the way they will deal with the American people. It would be full of obfuscation and self-delusion. It was sad to watch really smart people use $100 words to lie to themselves and mislead the public. It's how the German people convinced themselves the Nazis only had their best interest at heart and how our fellow Americans convinced themselves George Bush was doing the right thing. I'm not willing to extend that path of self-delusion, especially not via the Democratic Party... the party of the people.
Barack Obama has shown that he can take a hard punch and call it a good punch. He doesn't pretend things are what they're not. Honestly... I credit that to Michelle Obama, who doesn't strike me as someone who will let her husband convince himself of a lie, let alone pass it along to the world as truth. I don't trust Bill Clinton to serve that same role in the Clinton2 White House.
I refuse to be seduced by lies. I hope the remaining super-delegates will do the same. It really *IS* time for a change, within our party as well as the nation.
Results of the DNC Rules Committee:They seated both FL and MI Delegates with Half Votes and the New number to win the Democratic Nomination is 2118.
Barack has 2051 and needs 67 Votes for the Nomination
Hillary has 1877 and needs 241 Votes for the Nomination
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/31/dems.delegates/index.html
Thanks to all of you for the remarkable restraint this campaign showed at the DNC's Rules Committee meeting yesterday.
All of our hard work and financial support for Barack is about to payoff.
Its time to discuss what strategies will be effective in beating McCain this Fall ?
Gobama !
-Vince ;-}
Wow!
I don't know what to make of it. I truly was upset by Harold's Icky term "hijacking" the election.
Excuse me?
What about the voters who followed the rules and sat on their hands?
Did they cry foul?
Did they crybaby in front of the DNC Rules meeting? Yes! And then women get mad when they are treated "unfairly" by the sexist media. I didn't see any men crying ladies!
I have to tell you when my kids don't get their way they scream and shout and throw a temper tantrum. I put them in time out. but how do they give time-outs to grown women?
Harold the word hijacking has a double meaning in this day and age. Shame on you! Shame on your disgraceful performance in front of the crowd. You're behavior was embarassing. It shows you feel the hell with party unity. The hell with the fact obama's name wasn't even on the ballot yet you have the audacity to think Hillary should get all the votes in Michigan? Detroit voted for Hillary?
When you run a red light and are caught doing it you get punished. When you go over the speed limit you get punished. So when you break the party rules you don't get punished?
How many red lights have you run Harold Icky? Do you tell the officer lmillions of others run red lights too but they don't get caught so therefore you shouldn't have to pay a price for breaking the rules?
If you turn in your library books late their are fines. When you pay abill past due their are penalties and fines and fees.
If someoen robs your house or your person if they get caught they go to jail. They don't get off because they needed the money.
So Mr. Icky, let me get this straight your idea is it's ok to rob and steal, its ok to turn books in late, its ok to run red lights and its ok to speed even if the rules warn you if you break them you will be punished. Rules are just established to annoy you when you don't get your way, is that it sir?
So Harold Icky you are hijacking fairness from anyone who doesn't have the same beliefs as you do. You are holding the Democratic party as your hostage so you can get your ransom demands.
You are hijacking the Democratic primary, you are hijacking the convention in August and you are hijacking the election in November.
Now that's not what I call loyalty to your candidate, or uniting our party.
Just like any other hijacker, you sir are really a bona fide domestic terrorist of the worst kind.
Just watched a good deal of the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee meeting on CSPAN. It was very entertaining to say the least. Some committee members that were trying to settle "political favors" stood out the most trying to justify the breaking of the rules and the two "flawed, in so many ways, Florida/Michigan elections" - in the name of those who voted - WOW. It was quite sickening to watch grown folk (politicians) do or say anything in the interest of returning political favors. In the name of unity, the DNC RBC allowed a solution that benefited HRC but as many have known for a long time......IT'S OVER. Barack Obama is the DNC nominee. She could not have caught him with the full delegation seated at 1 vote vs 1/2 vote. I look forward to the remaining three states and the superdelegates closing the DNC primary season this week.
OBAMA '08
We need to show up to that meeting in huge numbers! HRC says she has people coming from 32 states - we need to have even more to show the DNC that we will not accept any back room deal that isn't fair to both sides. Show them just how strong our support is for Barack Obama, the next President of the United States.
Please get to the meeting. If you can't, spend your days making calls to voters in the upcoming primary states. Another great idea is to ask the uncommited Super Delegates to step up. Call anyone you know within driving distance of DC to show up at the meeting!
You can also write to the DNC to let them know your opinion. How do you think the delegates should be allocated for Michigan and Florida? I can see the argument for Florida having a 50% representation (even though HRC and everyone else agreed no delegates would be seated, their votes were at least somewhat valid even though some stayed home because they knew it wouldn't count). What about Michigan? How do you seat delegates when many stayed home knowing their candidate wasn't even on the ballot?
Why is it that everyone but the Clintons followed the rules? Why is she now complaining about the very rules she agreed to when she assumed she would win? I would say that some representation should be allowed because it's not the voters fault, but it should be 50% for Florida and less than that for Michigan. Obama shouldn't be punished for one of the most fixed primaries in American history - the Clintons had every advantage at that point, HRC had name recognition, the support of the state party machine, and since the candidates couldn't campaign there, the [Clinton] Party Machine had a huge advantage the other candidates didn't. People didn't get to know Obama and at that point many of those votes were for the Clinton name - she basically ran unopposed. That early in the process and under those rules the only one person that had a chance was Hillary. When Barack is able to make his case to the voters things change drastically.
Those soldiers in Iraq need this nomination solved ASAP so we can ensure that a Democrat will win and bring them home. This is no time for putting one's self above the needs of so many in grave danger. We can't afford conservative new justices on the Supreme court (which a McCain win would certainly result in - threatening Roe v. Wade, seperation of church and state, civil rights, privacy, etc). This country can't stand for another 4 years of Bush economics.
If this goes to the convention McCain will win in an election that is almost certainly a lock for the Democrats. If the party continues to be so split many will stay home because they haven't had time to get over the loss of their candidate. This will hurt down ticket Dems and cost us our majority in Congress.
Once upon a time, there was a Democratic primary. In those halcion days, everyone knew that such primaries are decided by delegates. Some delegates were elected by traditional state caucus results (that encourgaged more voter participation and involvement), while some relied on proportional delegates based on popular vote count. States such as Texas had a combination of caucus and popular vote representation.
In the beginning was agreed (including the candidates) that because Florida and Michigan moved up their primary dates to try to showcase their States, that votes from those states would not count towards the nominating process. Whether taking all the delegates rather than half of the delegates may be a point of debate, but at that time, everyone understood that it was essential that States not try to gain an advantage by trying to leapfrog over other states.
Thus, when the race started it was understood that the nominating process was all about delegates. Sentator Clinton herself during the early campaign proclaimed that the votes for Florida and Michigan would not count in those states during the first January primaries and did not voice any concern about until she did not win other early contests.
Now that it appears that Senator Obama will capture the required number of delegates, all of a sudden Senator Clinton maintains that the voters of Michigan and my home state have been "disenfranchised". The term itself is particularly loaded in that that many, particularly in Florida equate the term with what occurred in the 2000 election between Gore and Bush. Unfortunately, all this does is to incite party divisions. The Democratic Rules Committee will be asked on May 31st to do what is fair. What seems most fair is to abide by the very rules that they set.
The fact that Obama was not on the Michigan ballot and did not campaign in the states makes any and declaration the Clinton won the popular vote over "undecided" specious at best. In my home state of Florida, the large voter turnout was largely spurred by a popular property tax ammendment and many voters who were not property owners did not vote because they were told the votes would not count. Perhaps more importantly, Obama was not yet sufficiently well known and had not establishe a campaign organization in the state which has allowed him to win or compete in other states where he initially had a 20%-25% deficits in the polls.
The notion of the "popular vote" is also interesting. Senator Clinton's campaign maintains that she should receive credit for all the votes that were received in Michigan while Senator Obama (whose name was not on the ballot) should receive no votes. The Clinton campaign also maintains that caucus states should not count (we do not even know the actual raw total of votes from which the caucus results were derived). If there was ever a case for disenfranchisement, it would be to neglect those states who followed the rules and the determined the nominee and delegates in the way that many have determined such delegates for many years. So we actually do not know what the "popular vote" is and even if we did, the cross-over of Republicans in a number of important states to vote for Senator Clinton as part of Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" definitely influenced the popular vote, if indeed the popular vote could be accurately captured.
For these reasons, it is important that we begin to heal the divisons between supporters of these two campaigns as soon as possible. This primary is and always has been about delegates and most importantly about the future for our families and direction of this country...
David Loewenstein PhD is author of "For the Love of Rachel: A Father's Story" and Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Miami. He can be reached at dloewenstein@att.net
I believe that Florida and Michigan should be seated in some fashion at the convention. But I think it is disengenuine for Senator Clinton to act as though she was always for them being counted. Here is a press release from her campaign regarding the DNC's rules. (link to press release here)
Go here to read the four state pledge all candidates signed, including Senator Clinton.
9/1/2007Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State PledgeThe following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle."We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."
9/1/2007
Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge
The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.
"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.
And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.
Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."
Has anyone else found the rules related to donating to campaigns a bit fuzzy? I can donate two total maximums one for the primary and one for the genneral, Right? What happens if Obama has the nomination taken away from him, can I get any of the Genneral election funds back or would they go to the Democratic nominee even if I didn't want them to? What about the Obama store items I bought? It says they are part of my total but it doesn't seem as if the campaign is keeping a running account of my donations from all places. Am I responsable for doing that? Do any of you out there have any answers? I asked the Fundraising office (left a message) but have recieved no information back. They are so busy that it seems we are on our own for now.
In our pursuit of protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority , we have wrestled with the inequities of the Electoral College ( negating a majority popular vote ) , the two seats / state in the Senate that can sometimes frustrate popular will, and the delegate fiasco we are currently experiencing ( which honestly should not be happening -- the Democratic Party should be mortified over this development ).
The simplest thing that occurs to me might actually circumvent a lot of these problems while preserving minority protections as they are expressed in the voting habits of the populace.
Why not institute a party statute , and eventually a constitutional amendment that awards delegate selections and electoral college votes not on the basis of total population, but rather on the basis of VOTING population in the previous major election years?
It would preserve the notion of popular VOTE being dominant, while also giving a measure of anti-bully protection to the smaller states ( and delegations ). In essence, you could bulk up as much as you wished.
Imagine the levels of voter participation we would finally begin to experience in this country. There would be incentive to vote for all factions. It would TRULY make their vote meaningful, even if their candidate lost. Are we ever embarrassed that the supposed bastion of democracy in this world exhibits the lowest voter turnout of all ?
It wouldn't hurt to make voting a 2-day, weekend holiday process as well ( as in many European countries ). God knows we could do without another questionable national holiday in favor of a voting one.
It is my hope that those responsible for this site and information dissemination in the campaign would respectfully forward these ideas directly to Barack Obama for immediate consideration.
Finis / Andrew Tipton
