2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumKrystal Ball: I actually want to go over the cliff
Easy for you to say your a business woman with money.Kind of fucking selfish if you ask me we have millions of citizens who are living paycheck to paycheck and working poor people that no one even talks about. So I say fuck you Krystal
Filibuster Harry
(666 posts)elfin
(6,262 posts)Not all the time, but lately I wonder at her smarts.
Often on Bashir's show. She seemed progressive earlier, now I wonder if she is planning to run for office again and is practicing hedging comments to be more successful with repugs in another run.
Believe she ran for the House and lost.
From Wiki -
2010 U.S. Congressional campaign
See also: United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 1
In 2010 Ball ran to represent Virginia's 1st congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives and was defeated by Republican incumbent Rob Wittman.[7][8] Early in the race, Ball was endorsed by WUFPAC (Women Under Forty Political Action Committee).[9] Despite being defeated by a margin of 63.90% to 34.76%,[10] the former candidate was named by Forbes Magazine as number 21 on the magazines "The Top 25 Most Powerful Women Of The Midterm Elections".[11]
[edit]Political positions
Ball supported:
Education reform, including charter schools, using technology, alternative certification of teachers, and paying teachers six figure salaries.[8]
The 2nd amendment as ensuring individual gun rights (she is an NRA member). Ball has stated that she is "uneasy" about guns in National Parks.[12]
Supports a lifetime ban on lobbying by former members of Congress, banning lobbyist gifts, increasing disclosure, and establishing a new Independent Ethics Commission to investigate and audit influence by special interests.[12]
Whisp
(24,096 posts)can't stand her, nor those other kindergarten irritants she is on the panel with.
juajen
(8,515 posts)We have a somewhat different perspective; although, I certainly don't see any need for automatic guns or rifles. Of course, if a bear is coming at you, could come in handy.
The Magistrate
(95,255 posts)People have to be made to realize just how dangerous to the country Republicans in Congress really are.
Iggo
(47,568 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)MH1
(17,604 posts)and what is coming with the so-called cliff is less bad than what the republicans will agree to.
Consider that A LOT of progressives dearly want to see large cuts in defense spending. Have you noticed what has been missing from everything being discussed in terms of a deal to avoid the "cliff"? Exactly. Now I'll admit I haven't paid attention to details of all the offers, but it seems that going over the "cliff" might be the ONLY way to see those military spending cuts.
Yes, cutting military spending will hurt some people, some people will lose their jobs. But there is no cut in defense spending that won't cause that, and progressives generally want lower defense spending. (The preference might be to do military cuts at a time when the unemployment rate is lower, but hey, what makes anyone think the opportunity will be available then?)
Since there is an insistence on "cutting spending" by the republicans; if military is mostly off the table; how in the world do we do any better than what happens with the fiscal "cliff"? It seems to me that any plan they will come up with will hurt social programs MORE than the "cliff".
Of course there is also the issue of the expiring tax cuts. I wish we could keep the tax relief for only the lowest incomes, the people who are really struggling. I'm sorry, but if you have a flat screen tv and the latest iPhone, you're probably not one of the folks I'm worried about. We need to stop running up deficits. People need to pay sufficient taxes to pay for the stuff their elected reps vote for. That means all of us. Preferably at a more progressive rate scale than we currently have, but in any case it has to happen.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)That was why the plan with Obama agreeing to it was considered 'chess' etc. I don't play chess, but I do understand long-term goals and following the intent. In this case, the intent was to get out of the centuries of war making the USA has engaged in.
This way of doing so removes the charge of being soft on enemies. Although it is exactly what the most radical on the right have claimed - that Obama wants the USA to change its world role. He's announced, and the right has laughed at the idea - that he wants to create a jobs program for those soldiers coming back to America - to rebuild America.
This is a popular goal among progressives and you are correct in all you say, even with the loss of defense jobs. But those workers could go into other industries that use government funding such as alternative energy and other things this nation needs.
It's been a battle of the plutocrats who made their family fortunes with weapons and fossil fuels and diverting the tax dollars to them. That money was and will be government money; why not use it for things the people want and need?
The plutocrats or whatever name we wish to call them, have held onto a system of wealth creation that worked for them no matter the costs ot many things and refused to change. They could have adapted new business models. Now people don't believe their fables anymore. Well, many people don't.
Taking the money from the defense industry doesn't mean the permanent impoverishment of those workers - they will gravitate toward jobs created to restore the country. But Tea Party Two as promised by Grover Nordquist to fight all that Obama tries to do from 2013 on, and will keep agitating both sides.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Sorry I'm so wordy in mine.
juajen
(8,515 posts)There are great savings here. The first thing we should do is stop paying military contractors. I can't believe we are even doing this.
Filibuster Harry
(666 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)even though she is a gun nut.
maxsolomon
(33,400 posts)Are they serious about deficit reduction or not? Will they let the DoD bear ANY of the Austerity (when they should bear it ALL)?
We existed for the entire Clinton era under these rates. The FICA tax cut was never meant to be anything but temporary, either.
Besides, how much of a cut did the Bush Tax Cuts give you? For the rich, it was substantial. I barely noticed a difference.
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)those airhead "pundits", amateur "journalists" or what ever they are. MSNBC is scraping the bottom of the barrel with those twits.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)except for the blow hard bully, chris matthews. although, he does have some good moments when he is attacking bigots. however, his commercial with mount rushmore behind him is an affront to the first people of this land.
juajen
(8,515 posts)I don't always agree with everything they say, and they can be annoying sometimes, but going for the youngins is a very smart move.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)To your finances???
To people in your tax bracket???
I didn't think so.
Revolutionary Girl
(90 posts)I hope we will too. Only way we'll ever get serious defense cuts, among other things. They'll fix the tax situation in a hurry, don't worry.
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts).