HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » grahamhgreen » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5


Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 30, 2004, 03:05 PM
Number of posts: 15,741

Journal Archives

Some more comments by the President yesterday, good and bad:

OBAMA: We all agree on the need to create more jobs that pay well. Traditionally, both parties have been for creating jobs rebuilding our infrastructure -- our roads, bridges, ports, waterways.

I think we can hone in on a way to pay for it through tax reform that closes loopholes and makes it more attractive for companies to create jobs here in the United States.

GOOD! Infrastructure jobs are good (assuming we don't buy our bridges from China like we did with the SF Bay bridge).

We can also work together to grow our -- grow our exports and open new markets for our manufacturers to sell more American-made goods to the rest of the world. That’s something I’ll be focused on when I travel to Asia next week.

VERY VERY BAD! This means the TPP, and other costly trade agreements One agreement in the TPP would require that when the govt buys cars or pencils, they no longer have to buy from American companies. Another allows corporate courts to rule on the legitimacy of our laws! Bottom line - fewer jobs and lower wages.

We all share the same aspirations for our young people. And I was encouraged that this year Republicans agreed to investments that expanded early childhood education. I think we’ve got a chance to do more on that front.

GOOD! Assuming this does not mean more money to privateers.

We’ve got some common ideas to help more young people afford college and graduate without crippling debt, so that they have the freedom to fill the good jobs of tomorrow and buy their first homes and start a family.

GOOD! I think.... what are these 'common ideas'?

And in the five states where a minimum wage increase was on the ballot last night, voters went five for five to increase it. That will give about 325,000 Americans a raise in states where Republican candidates prevailed. So that should give us new reason to get it done for everybody with a national increase in the minimum wage.


Keystone, I just consider as one small aspect of a broader trend that’s really positive for the American people.

BAD! Perhaps EVIL! (I posted this yesterday as an OP)

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-remarks-on-midterm-election-results/2014/11/05/491a02b2-6524-11e4-9fdc-d43b053ecb4d_story.html
Posted by grahamhgreen | Thu Nov 6, 2014, 02:06 PM (0 replies)

If millennials had Had Voted

If Millennials Had Voted, Last Night Would Have Looked Very different

The GOP’s big Election Day victory may have a lot to do with who didn’t show up at the polls—and one of the groups that stayed home at a record rate were young people. According to an NBC News exit poll, the percentage of voters aged 60 or older accounted for almost 40 percent of the vote, while voters under 30 accounted for a measly 12 percent. Young people’s share of the vote is typically smaller in midterm elections, but the valley between age groups in 2014 is the largest the US has seen in at least a decade.

And that valley made a huge difference for Democrats, because younger voters have been trending blue. Some 55 percent of young people who did turn up voted for Dems compared to 45 percent of those over 60.

An interactive predictor on the Fusion, the news site targeted at millennials, indicated how Democrats could have gained if young people had shown in greater numbers. Using 2010 vote totals and 2014 polling data, the tool lets users calculate the effect of greater turnout among voters under 30 in several key states.

On Tuesday, according to preliminary exit polls, young voters in Iowa favored Democrats by a slight margin—51 percent—but they made up only 12 percent of the total vote, leaving conservative Republican Joni Ernst the winner. In Georgia, 58 percent of young voters went for Democrat Michelle Nunn, but they made up 10 percent of the total who showed up to cast their ballots. In Colorado, where a sophisticated political machine delivered Democratic wins in 2010, the calculator shows that a full 71 percent of young people voted for Dems in 2010; exit polls indicate that young voters made up 14 percent of the final tally, leaving Mark Udall out in the cold.

Posted by grahamhgreen | Thu Nov 6, 2014, 11:19 AM (4 replies)

53% Think Neither Political Party Represents the American People


Voters continue to believe Democrats have more of a plan for the future than Republicans do, but most again say neither party represents the public.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is fair to say that neither party in Congress is the party of the American people. That’s up six points from 47% last October and matches the previous high found in June 2012 during the last national election cycle. Just 28% disagree, while 19% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

But a plurality (47%) believes the Democratic Party has a plan for where it wants to take the nation. That’s up slightly from the low 40s in prior surveys back to February 2010. Thirty percent (30%) think President Obama’s party does not have a plan for the future. Twenty-three percent (23%) are undecided.

By contrast, 38% think the Republican Party has a plan for where it wants to take the nation, but slightly more (40%) disagree. Twenty-two percent (22%) are not sure. This is generally in line with past surveys. Belief that the GOP has a plan for the future jumped to a high of 54% in June 2012 but fell back to previous levels after that.


How did we let that happen?

Obama today: "Keystone, I just consider as one small aspect of a broader trend that’s really positiv

In Full: "Keystone, I just consider as one small aspect of a broader trend that’s really positive for the American people."


Looks like Obama is on the TV pre-caving to Republican demands. nt

Why one of my people refused to vote:

Here's a Facebook exchange with one of my millennials who sat out:

(OCT 29) Me: Not voting isn't rebellion, it's surrender!

THEM: The exact opposite is true. The electoral system is the illusion of democracy, and by voting all we're doing is reinforcing the legitimacy of that illusion. Given that the corporate elite own both major parties and the entire political establishment, who you vote for doesn't matter. The same elite class retains power regardless of who wins the elections that are set up as a distraction; the illusion that we as individuals have a say in the government. Voting is surrender. The only effective way of influencing change is the building of mass movements.

ME: Whatever system you might set up will not work, if nobody votes. Fact is that the ruling elites rule tightens when fewer people go to the poles.

THEM: Again, the opposite is true. The power of the ruling elite is strengthened when you DO vote, because you're playing their little game they set up to distract everyone from the fact that their class is running the show regardless. Instead of voting, we need to be figuring out how to remove that class from power, and you can't do that while participating in their fictional elections. Just look at what happened with Obama. He was one of the most liberal members of the senate, and once he took power under this system he became just like Bush, or even worse in some ways. Voting means nothing if the system is fraudulent. And given that the system is fraudulent, voting actually makes it more difficult to create positive change, because by voting you're giving credibility to the clown show that's designed to distract everyone from the truth. Rebellion is the only answer, and you can't rebel against a system you're actively participating in and legitimizing.

Think of it like a game of Monopoly. The game board is the system. And since the capitalist elite invented the game, they start off with 5x as much money as you, and every time they pass Go they get 5x as much money as you. Also, because they own the system, they already have hotels on 90% of the board at the start of the game. And they say to you... "If you want some control over the system you have to play this game I invented." But the game is rigged. You can't win. Within a few moves you're bankrupt and the elite are just richer and more powerful than they were before. In a situation like that Monopoly game the only logical solution is to refuse to play, and flip the board over so you can establish a fair game; a game that isn't rigged by the corporate elite.

ME: This ballot initiative is on the Cali ballot this year: "CISS Proposition 47 Criminal Trials - Reduces the classification of most nonviolent crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor".

In my view, that's a positive step forward if it passes

Now vote!

THEM: Laws that pass can always be undone in time. Just look at how the civil rights act is currently being gutted. Voting isn't the answer. The answer is a new system of government. We can't reform our way out of this.

ME: I suppose you prefer Cannabis users be imprisoned too... because that's how cannabis laws have been reformed - by people voting!

And then there is the minimum wage - republicans want to eliminate it, Democrats are trying to increase it!

THEM: yes, there are some differences between the parties, but the system is totally owned and controlled by the corporate elite. To them it's just plan A or plan B, and they're fine with either one. And they want us to think it's so important to choose between the parties because that's how they retain power over us. It's like, if you're in jail and they institute some kind of prisoner election to determine the conditions inside the prison. They don't really care about the results as long as we stay behind bars. What I want is to escape, to get out of prison entirely, not to focus on tiny reforms that keep us distracted just enough to prevent us from breaking out. We can't be free if we keep playing their rigged game that keeps us imprisoned. What we need to be doing is planning a jail break.

ME: I understand your point. But you not voting is exactly what they want you to do. Watch this short clip from 1980:

Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo)
Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and...

THEM: That argument is ridiculous on the face of itself, because it assumes that there is some sort of substantial moral difference between the parties. My position is that there isn't. And, again, the exact opposite of this argument is actually true. VOTING is what the establishment WANTS you to do, because it keeps you invested in the system, rather than working to undermine and oppose the system. Voting gives the system the credibility and legitimacy that it NEEDS to maintain its power. If we all stopped voting because we realized that it was doing nothing for us, then the establishment capitalist elite would freak the heck out, because their system would be in danger of losing its "right" to rule over us. Again, you can not oppose a system if you're busy supporting it.

ME: If voting is so unimportant , then why are the Koch brothers spending billions to elect candidates that want to eliminate the minimum wage, social security, and Medicare?

And there's more than just candidates at stake, there are ballot issues that will legalize cannabis, raise the minimum wage, force insurance companies to lower rates, and reduce non-violent felonies to misdemeanors at stake.

THEM: The Koch brothers are part of the elite ruling class. Their class will retain power regardless of who wins the elections. They just happen to have a strong preference between Plan A and Plan A1. Others in their class might be more willing to make some small economic concessions to the poor, but that isn't really a major factor to the overall economic system. What I mean is, yes, raising the minimum wage would help poor people somewhat, but it doesn't change the fact that we live under a system in which the rich exploit the poor for profit. I want an end to that exploitation altogether, not just institute some kind of essentially irreverent reform that doesn't fundamentally change anything.

Well, that's the gist of it.

What I get from it is that people stayed home because they could not see a clear difference between the parties.

This is why centrist, third-way policies are a disaster.

Let me say, this is from a highly intelligent, well educated millennial with a good, upper middle class income, who works at a company that is a household name to us all.

Minimum Wage Hikes Approved By Voters in Every State it Was on the Ballot


5 States Back Minimum Wage Hikes; Mass. Approves Paid Sick Leave

The midterms saw nearly 150 ballot measures nationwide. Voters in four traditionally conservative states approved initiatives that will raise the minimum wage — in Alaska, Nebraska, South Dakota and Arkansas. Voters in Illinois also backed an increase to $10 an hour, although state lawmakers will have final say.

In Massachusetts, voters approved a landmark measure that will provide workers with the strongest paid sick leave requirements in the country, up to 40 hours per year.

Voter turnout among lowest on record for midterm election


How many days til impeachment, you reckon?

Posted by grahamhgreen | Wed Nov 5, 2014, 01:00 AM (7 replies)

Onshore Wind electricity is cheaper than natural gas, nuclear and coal power.

A study commissioned by the EU shows that onshore wind electricity is cheaper than natural gas, nuclear and coal power. The study takes into account climate change, human health and the like for a more complete total cost of energy production. The study found that the cost per megawatt-hour is about $133 for onshore wind, $235 for offshore wind, $168 for nuclear, $207 for gas, $274 for photovoltaic and between $205 and $295 for coal. European Wind Energy Association's deputy CEO Justin Wilkes says, "Not only does the Commission's report show the alarming cost of coal but it also presents onshore wind as both cheaper and more environmentally-friendly."

EWEA said onshore and offshore wind technologies also have room for significant cost reduction. Coal on the other hand is a fully mature technology and is unlikely to reduce costs any further.

“We are heavily subsidising the dirtiest form of electricity generation while proponents use coal’s supposed affordability as a justification for its continued use,” added Wilkes. “The irony is that coal is the most expensive form of energy in the European Union. This report shows that we should use the 2030 climate and energy package as a foundation for increasing the use of wind energy in Europe to improve our competitiveness, security and environment.”Read more at Domestic Fuel.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5