Nearly 1 in 2 Americans have Fallen into Poverty

[finehoe]

Further evidence that Republicans want the US to be a third-world country:

At this week’s debate for Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich emphasized one of his favorite subjects: his disgust for the federal judiciary. The disgraced former House Speaker warned of “an uprising” against the courts, adding that he’s “prepared to take on the judiciary” unless federal courts start issuing rulings he agrees with. He went on to say he understands these issues “better than lawyers,” because he’s “a historian.”

Saturday, Gingrich hosted a conference call with reporters and went even further, sketching out his vision for policymakers literally ignoring federal court rulings. Referencing Supreme Court findings on the handling of suspected terrorist detainees, for example, Gingrich said, “A commander in chief could simply issue instructions to ignore it, and say it’s null and void and I do not accept it because it infringes on my duties as commander in chief to protect the country.”

Gingrich went on to describe “the rule of two of three” â€" a made-up rule with no foundation in American law â€" in which two branches of government could out-vote the other one.

He wasn’t kidding, by the way.

This led CBS’s Bob Schieffer to ask Gingrich a good question on “Face the Nation” Sunday morning.

SCHIEFFER: One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a congressional hearing … how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?

GINGRICH: Sure. If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal.


Just so we’re clear, this week, a leading presidential candidate articulated his belief that, if elected, he might (1) eliminate courts he doesn’t like; (2) ignore court rulings he doesn’t like; and (3) take judges into custody if he disapproves of their legal analyses.

I hope it’s unnecessary to note that Gingrich’s vision is stark raving mad.

I’ll just conclude with this observation: Newt Gingrich believes Barack Obama is a wild-eyed fanatic, guided by an extremist ideology, hell bent on overseeing a radical overhaul of the American system of government.

The irony is rich.

[Ajax]

Further evidence that Republicans want the US to be a third-world country:

At this week’s debate for Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich emphasized one of his favorite subjects: his disgust for the federal judiciary. The disgraced former House Speaker warned of “an uprising” against the courts, adding that he’s “prepared to take on the judiciary” unless federal courts start issuing rulings he agrees with. He went on to say he understands these issues “better than lawyers,” because he’s “a historian.”

Saturday, Gingrich hosted a conference call with reporters and went even further, sketching out his vision for policymakers literally ignoring federal court rulings. Referencing Supreme Court findings on the handling of suspected terrorist detainees, for example, Gingrich said, “A commander in chief could simply issue instructions to ignore it, and say it’s null and void and I do not accept it because it infringes on my duties as commander in chief to protect the country.”

Gingrich went on to describe “the rule of two of three” â€" a made-up rule with no foundation in American law â€" in which two branches of government could out-vote the other one.

He wasn’t kidding, by the way.

This led CBS’s Bob Schieffer to ask Gingrich a good question on “Face the Nation” Sunday morning.

SCHIEFFER: One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a congressional hearing … how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?

GINGRICH: Sure. If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal.


Just so we’re clear, this week, a leading presidential candidate articulated his belief that, if elected, he might (1) eliminate courts he doesn’t like; (2) ignore court rulings he doesn’t like; and (3) take judges into custody if he disapproves of their legal analyses.

I hope it’s unnecessary to note that Gingrich’s vision is stark raving mad.

I’ll just conclude with this observation: Newt Gingrich believes Barack Obama is a wild-eyed fanatic, guided by an extremist ideology, hell bent on overseeing a radical overhaul of the American system of government.

The irony is rich.

Wow - who knew Gingrich had so much in common with Hugo Chavez? 

[JeffreyS]

Bush has most likely permanently damaged the Republican brand.  If Newt wins the nomination I predict you will see enough Republicans jump ship to form a competitive third party.

[Ajax]

Bush has most likely permanently damaged the Republican brand.  If Newt wins the nomination I predict you will see enough Republicans jump ship to form a competitive third party.

Ideally I'd like to see a couple of new parties come out of all the turmoil of the past few years.  Are we adequately represented by Democrats and Republicans?  If the Tea Partiers could continue to exert pressure on the politicians, and the Occupy movement could continue to exert pressure on the corporations, and if they could move away from the Democrat and Republican 'tents' so that they don't get usurped by the people that just want to divide power between the two major parties, that might go a long way toward making government more responsive to the People.  (Apologies for the run-on sentence). 

Occupiers and Tea Partiers would seem to make strange bedfellows, but it appears to me that they could agree that the 'one percenters' that exert influence over politicians (Wall Street, banks, big corporations, Koch Brothers, Obama's bundlers, George Soros), and politicians who use their power to pick winners and engage in crony capitalism (Solyndra, Community Reinvestment Act, deregulation, Haliburton) are all at the heart of our current economic problems.  We deserve better than a bunch of politicians who serve themselves and their parties first, and their constituents and their country second or worse. 

Or is it just me? 

[mtraininjax]

Ideally I'd like to see a couple of new parties come out of all the turmoil of the past few years.

Please Lord, no new Donald Trump party! 

[JeffreyS]

Ideally I'd like to see a couple of new parties come out of all the turmoil of the past few years.

Please Lord, no new Donald Trump party! 

That is the best post of the month.

[jerry cornwell]

This led CBS’s Bob Schieffer to ask Gingrich a good question on “Face the Nation” Sunday morning.

SCHIEFFER: One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a congressional hearing … how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?

GINGRICH: Sure. If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal.

If Romney doesnt eat him alive, Obama will! This will freak out  moderate Republicans, and all sane republicans.
Actually he is eating himself alive.

[Timkin]

Ideally I'd like to see a couple of new parties come out of all the turmoil of the past few years.

Please Lord, no new Donald Trump party! 

That is the best post of the month.

No.. This is !!

M-train ... You're Fired ! 


(edit: Just so you know M-train , I am kidding ) 

[Ajax]

Ideally I'd like to see a couple of new parties come out of all the turmoil of the past few years.

Please Lord, no new Donald Trump party! 

That is the best post of the month.

Oh my - definitely not where I was going with that!  I'll file that under "be careful what you wish for."   

[jerry cornwell]

Bush has most likely permanently damaged the Republican brand.  If Newt wins the nomination I predict you will see enough Republicans jump ship to form a competitive third party.

Ideally I'd like to see a couple of new parties come out of all the turmoil of the past few years.  Are we adequately represented by Democrats and Republicans?  If the Tea Partiers could continue to exert pressure on the politicians, and the Occupy movement could continue to exert pressure on the corporations, and if they could move away from the Democrat and Republican 'tents' so that they don't get usurped by the people that just want to divide power between the two major parties, that might go a long way toward making government more responsive to the People.  (Apologies for the run-on sentence). 

Occupiers and Tea Partiers would seem to make strange bedfellows, but it appears to me that they could agree that the 'one percenters' that exert influence over politicians (Wall Street, banks, big corporations, Koch Brothers, Obama's bundlers, George Soros), and politicians who use their power to pick winners and engage in crony capitalism (Solyndra, Community Reinvestment Act, deregulation, Haliburton) are all at the heart of our current economic problems.  We deserve better than a bunch of politicians who serve themselves and their parties first, and their constituents and their country second or worse. 

Or is it just me? 

With Paul doing as he is, you have your third party candidate. Of course, he strives for the Republican nomination. So, if he gets the nomination, does that defeat the 3rd party argument in America?

[Ajax]

With Paul doing as he is, you have your third party candidate. Of course, he strives for the Republican nomination. So, if he gets the nomination, does that defeat the 3rd party argument in America?

I can't imagine Paul getting the Republican nomination.  If he were to win the Iowa caucus, the knives would really come out.  Right now, the various conservative commentators (Limbaugh, Boortz, Hannity, Levin, etc.) are trying to either ignore Paul or convince everyone that he is unelectable.  Or that he's an idiot. 

I think it shows some promise that a 3rd party candidate can compete, but I don't think Paul or any other 3rd party candidate would have a chance in the general election - especially given the war chest that Obama has to play with. Paul has a large number of loyal supporters, but he doesn't have the infrastructure that the Republicans and Democrats have built over the years.

I don't think Paul would have gotten as much attention if he hadn't been allowed to participate in the Republican debates and straw polls.  So he's getting some use of their infrastructure, but he's running without the support of the GOP leadership.  He's still marginalized, since many of his views are in opposition to mainstream Republicans.  The GOP's mouthpiece, Fox News is downplaying Paul and even had one of their pundits (Chris Wallace) say (right before a debate that Wallace helped moderate) that if Paul were to win the Iowa caucus it wouldn't count, and it would discredit the Iowa voters. 

So I suppose that's what happens if you run under the 'big tent' but you don't follow the party line. 

Besides, to have a true 3rd (or 4th) party in this country, they would need viable candidates for offices other than the President.  In Congress - we have well over 500 members and only two are Independents.  The rest identify themselves as Democrat or Republican.  They have their own Congressional Caucus groups, but I believe they're kept in line for the most part by their party leaders.  So really, a 3rd party president would only be able to do so much. 

[finehoe]

[JeffreyS]

Could you post a link?

[FayeforCure]

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//11-28-11pov-f1.jpg

In contrast, those (corporate personhood) most able to pay taxes, are paying less and less..............starving the federal government of much needed revenue and thus creating deficits:



National Priorities..........

[Ocklawaha]

I haven't been in this thread but certainly watching from the corner...  Poverty is relative. In the USA/EEUU poverty is living in a projects housing facility, complete with food stamps, and struggling to make the basic utility payments. While I'd agree that some of us have put our selves in that position, there is a strong and defined downward slide when more and more or our people find themselves in those conditions. As for the homeless American's, at least at this moment, if your willing to follow some rules, and really need a warm bed and a meal it can be found in most every city. Absolutely THIS IS POVERTY AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES AT THE TOP.

So why do we keep avoiding the comparison with other western nations? Maybe because we are starting to have more in common with third world countries?

I think in many ways the so-called 3rd world has already left us by the side of the road. Honestly, I went back to Colombia, expecting the 3rd world, and 'found it' when I got back to Jacksonville. No argument from me on these points Faye, I also see our country and the Latin American countries like two speeding trains going in different directions. While one can still find some of those conditions I outlined south of the border, stepping over the dead guy on the sidewalk in Aquatalia is becoming a rarity. I think we're on the same page here Faye, while we may not have 2,000 people living in the trail ridge landfill, we seem determined to get there.

OCKLAWAHA