As the US election for president draws closer, dirtier the debates become. This does not only extend to President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but to the voters themselves. Since this election is so important to the United States, people who have not previously paid much attention to politics–myself included–have been roped into the huge battle for control. The battle has now been dragged into cyberspace.

Facebook has exploded with status and picture updates about the election and who individuals support, which creates tension among friends who are supporting different candidates. I know some of my friends are hardly talking to one another strictly because of fights they have had about politics.

My family and I have an agreement to not discuss politics because we support opposing candidates, and the fights would always turn ugly when the subject came up. However, the rest of the country is letting everyone know their position for the election; political conventions and rallies are happening left and right because everyone wants to get support for their candidate. In other elections, people were not as passionate about who they planned on voting for.

Sure, the election campaigns were aired on TV and everyone was subjected to the annoying phone calls sponsoring a candidate, but friends and families were not torn apart because of politics. Meanwhile, both candidates are trying to make themselves look as saintly as possible while simultaneously trying to make their opponent seem like the anti-Christ. The presidential debates have been the most public display of this goal. The debates have caused a huge stir with voters with trying to determine who “won” the debate.

Romney had better stage presence while Obama looked like he did not want to be there. Obama kept trying to play off of Bill Clinton and emphasizing how horrible George W. Bush was while not taking ownership of any of his own shortcomings. During Obama’s reign, the country’s deficit tripled and he added more debt than any other president combined.  But none of this is his fault, only Bush’s. Obama kept twisting Romney’s plan for taxes, which Romney defended and said that Obama was purposely misleading the public.

Romney continually challenged Obama, who never really defended himself fully. Since the debates, others have tried to make excuses as to why Obama did not seem to be present and involved. However, all the debates have done is created more of a gray area while the public decides which candidate is the biggest liar.

With the debates over, political commercials are always on TV. It has gotten to the point that I refuse to watch any TV until after the election craziness is over. Neither candidate is perfect, and it gets to be very depressing watching Romney have commercials saying how horrible President Obama is while Obama projects the opposite sentiment.

The election is a month away, and it is sure to get much worse before the ballots are collected and tallied. November is guaranteed to be a political bloodbath.   Image Courtesy of   new-york-city

The article 2012 Presidential Election, A November Bloodbath appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan as the Republican’s Vice Presidential candidate this Saturday. So who exactly is Paul Ryan, and what does this selection tell us about how the Romney campaign and the fight for the Presidency is shaping up to be?

Paul Ryan is the US State Representative for the state of Wisconsin, and also chair of the House Budget Committee. Over the past couple of years his plans for the US budget has been the subject of much conversation and controversy; he mostly talks up the need to cut debt and spending, and the way he seems to want to go about that is through slashing funding for welfare programs, among others. He’s very conservative politically and quite a favorite among the GOP.

Ryan seems to be widely considered very intelligent and competent. Many see him as a rising star, someone young and ambitious, and many have written about how he, in many ways, somewhat overshadows the actual presidential candidate, Romney. His plans are now what’s brought up whenever the policy of the republican presidential candidacy is discussed and he seems to be considerably more charismatic than Romney, who doesn’t seem particularly ideological or at least does not give off the impression of being genuinely passionate about ideology, and is seen as rather bland.

As someone who has made his name almost entirely on policy issues–namely his Ryan plan for the budget–there is widespread expectation that the conversations in this election cycle are finally going to go back to some talk of actual policy instead of mostly mudslinging and generally trying to point out what terrible people the other side are. Though that’s perhaps almost unrealistically optimistic.

Much like Romney and the current Republican Party, he’s anti-abortion and against gay adoption and gay marriage and has a fairly poor record for supporting women’s rights. He also supports further tax cuts for the rich and for businesses, and since taxes on the wealthy won’t be going towards cutting the debt in his plan, he intends on fighting the deficit by cutting government spending in welfare programs and education spending, which means the recipients of these welfare programs are going to be considerably worse off. Namely, the poor and seniors, whose medical care is paid for by the rather intuitively named Medicare.

These exact same stances are very similar to everything that the current Republican party seems to push for and that Romney has presented, so this was a VP pick that was reinforcing those ideas instead of trying to provide something different or appeal to a different angle or set of voters.

So what does this tell us about Romney’s campaign? Well, Romney could really have gone two different angles with his campaign now that he’s almost certainly going to be the Republican candidate for President to run against Obama. He could’ve tried to capture moderate voters who aren’t really very much on one side or the other, who almost undoubtedly, like everyone else in America, are unhappy with the economy as it is right now.

By trying to move a bit more from the right to the center and hoping that with the votes from conservatives and enough of a share from moderates, he could try to win the election. Along those lines, he could’ve even tried to reach out to groups rather alienated by Republican policies like women or Latinos.

However, Romney has never really been popular with conservatives who are the base of the Republican Party; when the primary elections to choose a party candidate to run for President were going on people, seemed to want any other choice, but all of the other options turned out to be too problematic for various reasons.

Earlier in his political career, when he was Governor of his home state of Massachusetts, Romney’s policies had been very different and not very right-wing, but now as he fights for the presidential nomination, he’s had to backtrack on a lot of it, and this gives the impression to a lot of conservatives that he hasn’t been conservative enough in the past. As a result, he’s not too popular among the conservative base.

So by choosing Paul Ryan as his VP pick, he has thoroughly burnished his credentials as a right-wing guy who’d bring about right-wing policy if elected President. This means Romney has decided that the support of an energized and enthusiastic conservative base could be more useful than attempting to win over moderates and risk losing support from the conservatives. Also, he’s doubled down on policies that would be useful to businesses and the rich–less regulation, lower taxes on them–so companies and the wealthy looking out for their own interests are more likely to back him.

Many average Americans are pretty apathetic about politics, an apathy that has only been increasing recently with widespread mistrust of all government. However, conservatives have been pretty fired up lately. He’s made the gamble that an enthusiastic base of people who are going to vote and fund a campaign, as well as guarantee lots of campaign funding from businesses and the rich to go towards ads and campaigning, is going to be more useful than hoping to get the more apathetic moderates to vote for him.

Voting isn’t compulsory in the US, so only 50-60% of eligible voters actually vote, and of course more dedicated groups are more likely to vote. Of course, now the Obama campaign will target those same moderates (already begun–the Obama campaign has been focusing a lot on how they would be so much better for the middle class and for women’s rights) because if enough of them care enough to vote, Obama has a pretty great chance of winning, but that’s the gamble Romney’s made now.

Will Obama be able to inspire those moderates enough to actually vote and convince them that voting for him would be good for them, or will lots of ads and campaigning funded by the wealthy and an enthusiastic base of conservatives who will definitely be going to vote when November rolls around, be enough for Romney to win? We’ll have to see how it plays out over the next three months.

Image Courtesy of  monkeyz_uncle

The article What Paul Ryan’s Candidacy Tells us about the 2012 Elections appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Senator Marco Rubio is the rising star of the Republican Party. He is seen as the best hope to bring Hispanic voters back to the party they abandoned in the 2008 election, in which, almost two-thirds voted for Barack Obama. But in the 2012 elections things might be different, Senator Rubio is trying to persuade the Latino voters that Mitt Romney would not follow the Arizona example, referring to the immigration law. That’s why he has become a serious option for vice president, and, who knows, if in the future he might be an option for president.

It seems that Mr. Rubio wants to show the world that the Republican Party would be more permissive with illegal immigrants. This is an important move, because if the Republicans are unable to convince the Hispanic population to vote for Romney they could lose crucial states like Florida, Colorado and Nevada.

Mitt Romney knows it and trusts that Mr. Rubio would be the man who would balance the forces and bring back the Hispanic vote to the Republican Party. In recent declarations Senator Rubio criticized the Democrat Party position over immigration, he stated that ” there are many in the Democratic Party that want immigration to be unsolved issue at least for the time being, because it’s more useful as a campaign issue than it is as a solved issue.”

The Hispanic Vote has become crucial in this election; it forced Mitt Romney to change the position he had in the primaries, in which he criticized Governor Rick Perry for granting in-State tuition to Texas universities to immigrants, to a much more permissive posture, in which he said he would consider a new version of the Dream Act. Congress voted down the Act in 2012, which supposedly will be proposed by Sen. Marco Rubio.

Senator Rubio is in favor of giving nonimmigrant visas to young illegals that were brought to the United States by a certain date, a date that for now is unknown, as long as they have graduated from high school and haven’t committed any crime. Andrea Saul, a spokesman for Mitt Romney’s campaign, said: “Governor Romney will study and consider any proposal on immigration from his republican partners,” to show that Senator Rubio’s proposals will be heard.

President Obama also knows of how crucial the Hispanic vote will be in this election, that’s why a few weeks ago he passed the Dream Act by an executive order, this will temporally make almost 800,000 young people who were brought to the country illegally as children safe from deportation. This does not mean these individuals can apply for their citizenship. Senator Rubio criticized president Obama´s action affirming that it was “an election-year action that in the long-term is going to have negative consequences.”

The battle to gain the support from the Hispanic voters has begun. Both parties know very well how crucial this segment of the population will be in the November election. A recent Gallup shows that president Obama has over 65% of Hispanic voters support. So now we just have to wait and see if the Republican Party is able to regain their trust. They have already chosen Marco Rubio to fulfill this difficult task; if he succeeds, there is a big chance that in the future he might become the Republican candidate for the White House.

Image Courtesy of  Gage Skidmore

The article Senator Marco Rubio and the Hispanic Vote appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. – According to a survey by StrategyOne, U.S. adults disagree with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Affordable Care Act. While opinion of the decision is generally polarized by party – 66% of Republicans disagree with the ruling; 71% of Democrats agree – Independents are more aligned with Republicans. Fully 46% of Independents disagree with the ruling, while only 35% agree. Intensity among Independents is also strongly against the ruling, with 35% saying they strongly disagree and just 12% strongly agreeing.

Steve Lombardo, global CEO of StrategyOne, believes negative reaction among Independents could assist Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney come Election Day. According to Lombardo, Independent opposition to the Supreme Court decision “suggests that the Roberts ruling has the potential to move swing voters and the GOP base toward Romney.”

Additionally, a majority (52%) of adults say they are more likely to vote in the presidential election as a result of the decision. The Supreme Court’s actions appear to have a greater impact on Romney supporters. Among those voting for Romney, 49% say they are much more likely to vote because of the SCOTUS ruling, compared to 38% of President Obama’s supporters. Those who disagree with the ruling are also more inclined to say the decision makes them much more likely to vote (43%) compared to those who agree with the ruling (35%).

Lombardo sees this enthusiasm gap between those opposing the ruling and those supporting it also benefiting the GOP in the election. “If the electorate looks more like 2010 than 2008, it will be a big boost for Romney,” added Lombardo.

According to the StrategyOne survey, U.S. adults overall are slightly more likely to agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act than disagree. Fully 48% of respondents agree with the decision, while 41% disagree.

Survey Methodology

StrategyOne conducted a nationwide telephone survey of 1,022 adults, 510 men and 512 women 18 years of age and older, living in the continental United States. All interviews were undertaken using computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) technology. A total of 772 interviews were conducted among landline respondents, and 250 interviews were conducted among cell phone respondents. Results are weighted to represent the U.S. population using data from the Current Population Survey on age, gender, race, region, and education from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). The overall margin of sampling error for the total N of 1,022 is +/- 3.5.

Image Courtesy of  Walter G Arce / Shutterstock.com

The article Are the Americans Happy with the Supreme Court Ruling? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Newark, U.S.A. – Today’s Presidential primary election is meaningless for citizens living in New Jersey, California, Montana, New Mexico and South Dakota. “This creates an alienated and cynical electorate that is becoming more disenfranchised with every election cycle,” says Jim Lynch, author of “The 2020 Players: A Futuristic View of the 2020 Presidential Election.”

Lynch asks, “Can you blame Americans for tuning out? This is not democracy; in fact, it just may be as bad as the backroom politics back in the old days of bosses and political machines.”

“As a result, millions of Americans had absolutely no voice in the Presidential selection process. Let’s face it; the primary system is broken,” says Lynch.

After today’s vote, which involves some 299 uncontested electoral votes, only Utah has yet to weigh in and they’ll hold off until June 26.

“Voting in America should be cherished as a sacred right, as a meaningful experience to every American. But voting has become totally meaningless for almost a third of the states participating in 2012 Republican primary balloting,” says Lynch.

“This flawed process is a ringing endorsement of the reform proposal to have a National One Day Primary on the same day in all 50 states for all presidential candidates. The single day primary would bring an end to local pandering to voters – like Newt Gingrich telling the people in Cape Canaveral ‘We should build a moon base’ – and to months of negative campaigning on TV and radio, one harmful and nauseating attack after another, without end.  And it would be far easier for both parties to unite behind the winners who emerge from the one day balloting,” says Lynch.

Lynch believes Americans must overhaul the political process and the insidious role that media advocacy plays in this process. “In my novel, The 2020 Players, I also advocate a viable three-party system, a single six-year term for President, and a ban on any political campaigning while in office.”

Jim Lynch is a native New Yorker, married with eight children and four grandchildren. His parents worked for the FBI. He spent eight years as an investigator and was an executive for AT&T. Lynch is a full time novelist.

Image Courtesy of  Jim Lynch

The article American Primary System is Broken, Novelist Says appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Last month Propublica told the unlikely story of how Eni Faleomavaega, the congressional delegate from American Samoa, had become one of Bahrain’s most reliable friends on Capitol Hill.

Faleomavaega had traveled to the Gulf Nation and made a series of statements in support of the government and criticizing popular protests that broke out there early last year. As we documented, he was turned on to the issue by the Bahrain American Council, a group created by a Washington lobby shop run by a close friend and campaign contributor of Faleomavaega’s.

But something unexpected happened after the publication of the story: Faleomavaega’s view of the situation in Bahrain shifted dramatically.

Since the protest movement began in February 2011, Faleomavaega had repeatedly criticized protesters as pawns or agents of Iran who were violently destabilizing an important U.S. ally. In comments submitted to the Congressional Record last March, for example, Faleomavaega argued that the monarchy that rules Bahrain had met all of the protesters’ demands, and added, “I have to ask why the demonstrators returned to protesting again, even after all their demands were agreed to.”

Human rights groups, meanwhile, have consistently criticized the government for suppressing protests with sometimes deadly force and for prosecuting activists and those that aided them.

Propublica’s story was published April 2, which happened to coincide with the start of a trip  Faleomavaega and two other Democratic members of Congress took to Bahrain (paid for by the government there).

On April 3, the group met with Bahrain’s human rights minister. During that meeting, Faleomavaega called on the government to implement reforms that were recommended by a commission of inquiry last year. He also raised the case of Jaffar Salman, a man detained for allegedly participating in an illegal assembly who had complained he was not getting medical treatment after being shot in the face with birdshot.

Salman was subsequently brought to the hospital, according to a letter Faleomavaega received thanking him from opposition party Al-Wefaq published on his congressional website last week.

In a statement accompanying the letter, Faleomavaega called for reconciliation, adding that “after the government crackdown on government protestors, the situation in Bahrain is alarming.”

This kind of rhetoric is an about face for the congressional delegate. On his last trip to Bahrain in October, Faleomavaega delivered a speech vigorously defending the government’s response to the protests. He worried about “the prospect of anarchy or the violent overthrow of a peaceful government by infiltrators from another country” — Iran.

Faleomavaega also met with Al-Wefaq officials on that October trip but they had expressed disappointment after the meeting, complaining that he did “not show enough understanding for the legitimate demands for reform.”

What caused Faleomavaega to change his view of the situation? He did not respond to requests for comment.

by Justin Elliott, ProPublica, May 2, 2012, 4:03 p.m.

The article Congressman Unfriends Bahrain appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

On April 26, Propublica reported on the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, and the debate it has inspired about the privacy of your Internet data and security. The underlying bill allows Internet providers, software companies and other private firms to share information about “cybersecurity” with the federal government — and protects them from legal liability.

The bill’s sponsors touted a handful of amendments they said addressed privacy and civil liberties concerns, but privacy activists say the amendments still don’t go far enough. The House had been set to vote on the bill today but instead passed it Thursday night, 248-168, with some changes:

How “cyber threat” information can be used: Rep. Ben Quayle, R-Ariz., proposed an amendment that limits the use of shared cyber threat information to five purposes: protecting cybersecurity, investigating cybersecurity crimes, protecting people from death or injury, protecting minors from harm, and protecting U.S. national security.

What kind of information can be shared: An amendment by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., specifies the kind of information that can be shared, saying it must be “directly pertaining to” a threat, vulnerability, attack or unauthorized access. It also makes clear that violating a website’s terms of service — that’s the form on which you check “agree” when registering at a site like Facebook or Gmail — doesn’t constitute a cyber threat.

A second look: An amendment proposed by Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., states that five years after the bill is enacted, Congress would have to re-examine and reauthorize it, providing an opportunity to address changes in technology or unintended consequences.

Addressing civil liberties: An amendment proposed by Mulvaney and Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash., says that in sharing information, the federal government should take “reasonable efforts” to limit the impact on privacy and civil liberties, consistent with the need to protect cyber threats.

Personal records: Put forth by Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., the amendment says the government can’t make use of educational, medical, firearms or tax return records that it receives from private companies through CISPA.

Why privacy activists are unhappy

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other pro-privacy groups continue to argue that the bill would enable commercial interests and intelligence agencies to misuse personal information under the guise of preventing cybercrimes. The pro-privacy groups say the amendments represent an improvement but don’t offer sufficient safeguards. CISPA allows private companies to hand information directly to military and intelligence agencies, such as the National Security Agency.

Privacy activists backed amendments by Democrats to give the Department of Homeland Security authority to devise privacy protections. None made it to the floor in the GOP-controlled House.

Under the amended bill, shared information can be used for the protection of national security, not just cybersecurity. Some opponents say this is too broad and fear it would be easy for the government to justify collecting private data even when unrelated to hacking or Internet security.

What’s next 

CISPA faces a hard road in the Democrat-controlled Senate, where it must duke it out with cybersecurity bills backed by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. The White House said this week that advisers would recommend that President Obama veto CISPA if it ever reaches his desk.

by Megha Rajagopalan, ProPublica, April 27, 2012, 4:37 p.m.

The article In the Evening Hours, CISPA Gets Some New Features appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

London, UK – Voters will select presidential nominee and convention delegates. Democrats Abroad, the official arm of the US Democratic Party for Americans living outside the US, will hold its Global Primary at 5 sites in the UK.

The Global Primary gives members of Democrats Abroad UK the opportunity to vote for a presidential candidate to represent the Democratic Party in this autumn’s election. Voters will also select delegates to represent Democrats Abroad at the party’s convention in Charlotte, North Carolina from September 3-6, 2012.

This is the only opportunity American citizens have to physically participate in the US election outside the country and its territories. The Republican Party does not hold a primary for its global members. And in the general election, all Americans living abroad must vote by absentee ballot.

Rob Carolina, Chair of Democrats Abroad UK, said, “Americans living overseas are very excited to vote in this important Presidential and Congressional election, and Democrats Abroad are proud to offer the only opportunity they will have to cast a vote for the President in person, right here in the UK. We would encourage all Americans living in the UK to join Democrats Abroad, take part in the Global Primary, register to vote at http://www.votefromabroad.org and sign-up to help us return President Obama to the White House.”

Polling places:

London – Tuesday, 1 May 6:30-9:30 pm / Sunday, 6 May 6:30-9:30 pm (live music, speeches and other entertainment provided), The Abbey Centre, 34 Great Smith Street, Westminster SW1P 3BU

Oxford – Friday, 4 May 10:00 am-6:00 pm, Rhodes House, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3RG

Cambridge – Tuesday, 1 May 6:30-8:30 pm, University of Cambridge Graduate Centre, 17 Mill Lane, Cambridge CB2 1RX

St. Andrews – Tuesday, 1 May 11:00 am-2:00 pm / Thursday, 3 May 11:00 am-6:00pm, St. Andrews Students’ Association, St. Mary’s Place, St. Andrews KY16 9UZ

Edinburgh – Wednesday, 2 May 11:00 am-6:00 pm / Friday, 4 May 11:00 am-6:00pm, NUS Scotland, 29 Forth Street, Edinburgh EH1 3LE

http://www.democratsabroad.org/uk-primary 

Image Courtesy of   Alan Hainkel / Shutterstock.com

The article Democrats Abroad Call Americans in UK to Vote for Global Primary appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

As the United States has removed itself from one extended military conflict in the Middle East – in Iraq – another one possibly looms on the horizon, brought on by Iran’s suspected nuclear program and, among other things, Israel’s desire to abolish it. The U.S. has a tricky and nuanced road to navigate, made only more complicated by Israel’s role, the rising price of oil, and the presidential election in November. When Americans were asked about various items related to the potential conflict with Iran, the responses reflect the complicated nature of the issue.  Seven in ten Americans agree that Iran’s nuclear capabilities pose a threat to the United States (72%), yet what action the United States should take in response is less clear.

Over half of U.S. adults say that if Israel takes action against Iran’s nuclear program that the U.S. should support Israel (56%), yet fewer than half of Americans say Israel should take action to destroy Iran’s nuclear program (45%) and fewer believe that the U.S. should take this action themselves.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,451 adults surveyed online between March 12 and 19, 2012 by Harris Interactive .

While a majority of all U.S. adults agree that Iran’s nuclear capabilities pose a threat to the United States this belief is stronger among older generations; 77%-79% of Baby Boomers (ages 48-66) and Matures (ages 67+) agree, compared to 63%-71% of Echo Boomers (ages 18-35) and Gen X (ages 36-47) who do.  The older generations are in similar agreement about the U.S. supporting Israel if Israel takes action against Iran’s nuclear program: over three in five Baby Boomers (63%) and Matures (68%) say the U.S. should support Israel, yet just 55% of Gen X and 45% of Echo Boomers respectively say the same.  There is a less strong opinion on whether Israel should take military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities.  Approximately half (47%-51%) of Gen X, Baby Boomers and Matures say Israel should, although just 38% of Echo Boomers agree.  If Americans are uncertain about how Israel should act, they are even more uncertain about what the U.S. should do:

• Overall 45% of U.S. adults agree that the United States should NOT take military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, 39% disagree and 16% are not at all sure;
• Matures (aged 67+) are most likely to say that the U.S. should not take action against Iran and Gen X is least likely to say this (40%).

Political Differences
Military engagements and involvement with Israel are usually politically charged issues, but that sense is even more escalated in an election year. Republicans, Democrats and Independents show a different mind when considering Iran’s nuclear situation:

• While a majority of all political parties say that Iran’s nuclear capabilities pose a threat to the United States and that if Israel takes action against Iran the U.S. should support Israel, Republicans are the most likely to say these things (83% say Iran poses a threat and 70% want the U.S. to support Israel). Democrats and Independents agree that Iran poses a threat (70% and 73% say so respectively), yet these groups are less strongly in favor of supporting Israel taking action (51%-57% agree the U.S. should do so);
• When asked directly if Israel should take military action against Iran’s nuclear program Republicans agree they should (59%), yet significantly fewer Democrats and Independents say the same (40% and 45%);
• On the other hand, a majority of Democrats say that the U.S. should not take military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear program (52%), yet fewer than half of Independents (46%) and Republicans (37%) agree.

Taking a more philosophical look, interestingly a majority of Americans — in all political parties — disagree that Iran has the right to continue working on its nuclear program (65%-71% of Republicans, Democrats and Independents say this).

So What?
Although most reports indicate that neither Israel nor the U.S. is likely to take immediate military action against Iran – the results of which could be enormous and costly — the continued discussion and analysis on what each country should do might have consequences of its own, particularly if Iran sees the ongoing discussion as provocation unto itself.  It will be interesting to see how President Obama handles the discussions and decisions moving forward — it seems unlikely that he would want to enter into a new military engagement, yet the potential threat from Iran is felt by Americans, the pro-Israel lobby is strong, and the U.S. demand for oil continues to be pervasive.

Methodology
This Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States between March 12 and 19, 2012 among 2,451 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

The Harris Poll  #39, April 10, 2012
By Samantha Braverman, Sr. Project Researcher, Harris Interactive

Image Courtesey of  Steve Rhodes

The article What Do Americans Think About Iran’s Nuclear Threat? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Over the past several months President Obama’s overall job ratings have been alternately holding steady and inching upward. His ratings on the economy are following suit. In March, 32% of Americans gave President Obama positive ratings on his handling of the economy while 68% gave him negative ratings. This is the same as in February and an improvement from the 25% and 75% who rated him positively and negatively respectively in December and January.

While there is still a concern about unemployment, more Americans say the job market in their region of the country is good. Over the past three and a half years The Harris Poll has regularly asked Americans about the job market in their region of the country. An average of 11% have called it good between July 2008 and January 2012, however the last few months have seen a steady rise from the 9% who said the job market was good in October 2011, to the 14% who said so in January 2012, now 20% report these feelings in March 2012. Although the numbers are improving, a majority still says that the job market in their region is bad (56%) while 24% say it is neither good nor bad.

The improvements in the job market are encouraging, as is the belief that the job market is growing. Currently one third (33%) of Americans believe the job market in their region is going to be better over the next six months while half (50%) say it will remain the same. Only 17% think it will be worse, which is lower than the 25% who said this in July 2011 and the 21% who said so in January.

Politics and the Economy

In an election year, it’s not surprising that the economy and job market are considered political issues, and it is also not a surprise that opinions differ between Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

Currently over half of Democrats (59%) and Liberals (55%) give President Obama positive ratings on his handling of the economy while only 12% of Conservatives and 6% of Republicans do; Independents (26%) and Moderates (35%) fall somewhere in the middle. Possibly showing more faith in the current administration, almost half of Democrats say that the job market will be better in the next six months (47%) — one third (33%) of Independents agree — yet only 18% of Republicans say the same. A majority of Republicans think the job market will remain the same (55%) and over a quarter say it will get worse (27%).

Despite improvements in how Americans view the job market and expect it to change over the next six months, a majority are still concerned that their family’s income will not be enough to cover all of their costs and expenses this year.

Currently 63% of Americans say they are concerned, with 26% very concerned. This is not very different from the 62%-65% who stated concern over the past two years. Not surprisingly, the higher a person’s household income, the less likely they are to be concerned about covering their costs and expenses.

However, it is somewhat alarming that large numbers of people even in the highest income brackets — 61% of those who earn $75,000 to $99,999 and 41% of those who earn $100,000 or more — say they are concerned about meeting their costs and expenses. And, despite their differing opinions on President Obama’s role in the economy and the outlook for the job market, when Democrats and Republicans were asked about their own financial concerns the story is the same: over six in ten Democrats (61%), Republicans (63%) and Independents (65%) say they are concerned that their family’s income will not be enough to cover all of their costs and expenses this year.

The economy and unemployment have been the focus for political initiatives and public discontent for some time. However, there are some possible green shoots, in that Americans overall are feeling better about the job market and President Obama’s handling of the economy than they have indicated for many months.

However, the large number of Americans communicating concern about covering their family’s expenses is disconcerting and indicates that while we may be moving in the right direction, the country still has a way to go on the road to full economic recovery. It will be interesting to see how these issues and concerns are addressed by President Obama and his Republican opponent in the upcoming presidential election.

The article Survey: Americans Feeling Better About The Job Market appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

President Obama told a packed audience of supporters in Vermont on Friday that America faces a stark choice between a society based on “shared responsibility” and a society “where you’re on your own.” He pledged to continue his efforts to equalize the tax burden and to push legislation which he believes will continue to create jobs and strengthen the economy.

Speaking of his rivals in the Republican presidential primary, Obama said, “Their philosophy is simple: in America, you’re on your own. If you’re out of work and can’t find a job, too bad; you’re on your own. If you get sick and don’t have healthcare, you’re own your own. If you’re born into poverty, you’re supposed to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don’t have boots.” He continued, “They believe that’s how America advanced. That’s their cramped, narrow conception of liberty, and they are wrong.”

Obama said the Republican philosophy is reflected in their efforts to cut government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, deregulate the banks, and create a tax structure that favors the wealthy. That is the same approach that caused the recession in 2008, he said.

“The recovery is happening,” said Obama. “In three years, we’ve created four million new jobs. We’ve rescued the American auto industry. American manufacturing is stronger than it’s been in years. I know there are still a lot of people out of work, and things haven’t gone as fast as we would like, but the last thing we can afford to do is go back to the same policies that caused this mess in the first place.”

Obama’s speech at the University of Vermont in Burlington was the first leg of a fundraising tour through New England. He drew laughs from the heavily partisan crowd when he pointed out that he was the first American president to visit the state in 17 years. President George W. Bush avoided Vermont, a perennial stronghold of the Democratic party and bastion of liberal politics, through all eight years of his presidency. President Bill Clinton visited the state during his first term.

“We’re going the reset the clock on that,” he said. “We love you,” shouted a woman in the audience. “Love you back,” Obama responded, drawing more laughs and cheers.

While avoiding the Supreme Court hearings on his healthcare reform bill, Obama touted the benefits of the law and said it has already had a positive impact. “Two and a half million more young people now have health insurance because they’re allowed to stay on their parents plans until they’re 26,” said Obama. “Seniors have already saved hundreds of millions on their Medicare prescription drug benefits. The healthcare reform we’ve passed will ensure that no one will go broke just because they got sick.”

He said the Republican party originally supported many of the ideas included in the healthcare reform law and that their uncooperative, anti-government attitude is something new. He said some of the country’s greatest achievements, such as the GI Bill, the space program, and the interstate highway system, were only possible with bipartisan support.

“There used to be a common spirit of cooperation, but not anymore, at least not in Washington D.C.,” said Obama. “But outside of Washington, most Americans understand that no matter who you are or where you’re from, we rise and fall as one people.”

Obama concluded by telling his supporters not to be discouraged by the opposition to the changes and improvements he promised when he ran for office in 2008.

“I told you change would not be easy,” said Obama. “I’m not a perfect man – Michelle will tell you that. But I promised I would keep fighting as hard as possible for positive change, and I have kept that promise. We’ll keep working until we’ve finished what we started in 2008. Press on with me. Press on, and we’ll remind the world what America is all about.”

Image Courtesy of    Ryan Rodrick Beiler / Shutterstock.com

The article Obama Says Country Faces a Defining Moment appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Just Label It (JLI) Campaign announced that a record-breaking one million Americans of all political persuasions have called on the FDA to label genetically engineered (GE) foods. The campaign also announced a new national survey revealing that Americans across the political spectrum stand united in support of labeling food that has been genetically engineered. This is a striking contrast to the partisan divisions plaguing our political system.

“Pink slime, deadly melons, tainted turkeys, and BPA in our soup have put us all on notice that what we eat and feed our families is critically important,” said Ken Cook, President of the Environmental Working Group. “Americans overwhelmingly demand safety, transparency and labeling of genetically engineered foods. It’s time for the FDA to come clean and restore public confidence in our food system.”

Since October, JLI, the national campaign to require GE-food labeling and its more than 500 partner organizations have spearheaded an historic number of public comments for a GE-foods labeling petition. March 27, 2012 is the date when the FDA was required to respond to the petition. It took less than 180 days to accumulate the record number of comments.

“In recent years, Americans have shown a real interest in knowing more about our food and now there is a clear mandate for the labeling of genetically engineered foods. This petition asks the FDA to stand up for the rights of average Americans, and not just a handful of powerful chemical companies.

It’s time for the FDA to give Americans the same rights held by citizens in forty nations, including all of our major trade partners, to know whether our foods have been genetically modified. The FDA needs to restore confidence in our food and our right to know about the food we eat and feed our families,” said Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Stonyfield.

New Survey Results: Motherhood, Apple Pie and GE Food Labeling Consumer support for GE-foods labeling in the U.S. is nearly unanimous, according to the political opinion survey on GE food labeling conducted by The Mellman Group on behalf of JLI.

“Few topics other than motherhood and apple pie can muster over 90%support, but labeling GE-foods is one of those few views held almost unanimously,” explained pollster Mark Mellman. The survey found nearly all Democrats (93% favor, 2% oppose), Independents (90% favor, 5% oppose) and Republicans (89% favor, 5% oppose) in favor of labeling. The study also revealed that support for labeling is robust and arguments against it have little sway.

Colorado mother and author Robyn O’Brien, who founded the AllergyKids Foundation after one of her children had an allergic reaction to breakfast, said: “Americans are responding to the call for GE foods labeling because they want more information for their families.

Like allergen labeling, GE-food labels would provide essential and possibly life-saving information for anyone with a food allergy. Being responsible for the health and safety of my children, I believe it’s my right to know about the food I feed my family…from allergens, to ‘pink slime’ to GE foods.”

The article Americans Demand Food Labeling for GE Foods appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

With about ten days to go before the next primaries in the Republican race for the nomination, all four remaining Republicans are losing to President Obama by between 8 and 17 points. As the race narrows down to the final candidate, just half of Americans (51%) say they are satisfied with the choices available to them for President while more than two in five (44%) are not satisfied.

Independents are the most dissatisfied with over half (55%) saying they are not satisfied with the choices while two-thirds of Democrats (68%) are satisfied. Republicans are more split as half are satisfied (52%) and 44% are not satisfied. But the Republican satisfaction is soft with just 13% very satisfied and 39% saying they are only somewhat satisfied. These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,056 adults surveyed online between February 6 and 13, 2012 by Harris Interactive 

Head to head match-ups

If the presidential election were held today, 46% of Americans would vote for President Obama, 37% would vote for Mitt Romney and 17% are not at all sure. Last month, two in five U.S. adults (43%) said they would vote for President Obama while 39% said they would vote for Mitt Romney.

Among Independents, it’s a slightly closer race with 43% voting for the President and 37% voting for the former governor and 46% of adults in the 2012 Swing States (Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia) would vote for President Obama and 39% would vote for Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul may not be in the fight for front-runner, but he actually makes it a slightly tighter race as 45% of Americans would vote for President Obama and 37% would vote for the Congressman while 18% are not at all sure. Among Independents, Paul is ahead 42% to the President’s 40% but in the 2012 Swing States the President is ahead 45% to 41% for Paul.

He may be jockeying for front-runner status but the former Senator from Pennsylvania is more than ten points behind the President. Almost half of Americans would vote for President Obama (47%) while 35% would vote for Rick Santorum and 18% are not at all sure. Among Independents, 44% would vote for President Obama and 35% for Santorum with 20% not at all sure. In the 2012 Swing states, 46% would vote for the President while 40% would vote for Santorum.

Finally, if the election was held today, half of Americans (50%) would vote for President Obama and one-third for Newt Gingrich (33%) with 18% not at all sure. Among Independents, President Obama leads Newt Gingrich 47% to 32% with 20% not at all sure and among people in the 2012 Swing states President Obama leads Newt Gingrich 48% to 36% with 16% not at all sure.

So What?

The Republican primary continues to be a road full of twists and turns and the main benefactor to these constant changing stories is President Obama. In each of these four races the President has expanded his lead. The question is what happens when the primary race is over and the Republicans have decided on a candidate. If that happens quickly, he will have time to make the race close, but the longer the primary goes, the shorter the general election timeframe becomes.

Methodology

This Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States between January 25 and 27, 2012 among 2,099 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments.

Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

Image Courtesy of   Jose Gil / Shutterstock.com

The article Republicans Are So Far Losing to President Obama appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

As President Obama starts his fourth year in office, people have many opinions of the job he has done so far and these opinions have changed over the past three years. In looking at fourteen different statements there are three that have changed fairly substantially over time.

In 2010, almost three in five Americans (57%) said President Obama made other countries feel better about the United States. That number dropped to 50% last year and is now even lower, at 43% this year.

Over half of U.S. adults (55%) agree that President Obama is not changing things fast enough and in 2010, 43% felt that way. Another large shift is in the speed of change. In 2010, less than two in five (38%) agreed the President was changing things too fast; this year one-quarter of Americans (26%) feel this way.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,016 adults surveyed online between January 16 and 23, 2012 by Harris Interactive .

Looking at some of the more positive statements, each shows a decline in the number of Americans who agree. While majorities believe that the President is trying to put the country back on track (57%), trying to bring about much needed change (54%) and is open, honest and trustworthy (50%), two years ago, in 2010 between 54% and 61% agreed with each statement and in 2011 between 53% and 59% agreed.

Looking at some of the more negative statements, more than three in five Americans say President Obama has not lived up to his campaign promises (63% up from 56% who said this last year) and that he spends too much time talking and there isn’t enough action (61% up from 56%). In 2010, three in five U.S. adults (61%) believed the President hadn’t done much for them yet and that dropped to 56% last year but is back up to 58% this year.

Other findings of this poll include:

• A few things haven’t changed too much since last year. About half of Americans agree President Obama does a good job of explaining issues to people (49%) and that he is working for the people’s best interests and doing the right thing (49%);
• Less than half of Americans (47%) believe the President provides a fresh outlook with new ideas, down from 52% last year and 56% in 2010;
• Three in five Americans (59%) say the President is spending too much and creating too much debt, which is down from 61% who said this in 2010 and up from 56% who agreed in 2011; and,
• Up from 41% last year, this year 45% of U.S. adults say President Obama doesn’t care about people like them.

Partisan Differences

As it has been in the past two years, it is not surprising that Democrats agree with more of the positive statements about the President, and Republicans agree with more of the negative ones.  There are, however, a few interesting similarities that came out in the data. For example:

• Majorities of Republicans (52%), Democrats (55%) and Independents (59%) say President Obama is not changing things fast enough;
• But, at the same time, two in five Republicans (40%), one-quarter of Independents (24%) and 14% of Democrats say the President is changing things too fast; and,
• While four in five Republicans (82%) and almost two-thirds of Independents (64%) say President Obama has not lived up to his campaign promises, so do almost half of Democrats (48%).

So What?

President Obama has had a complicated year. The economic indicators are improving, but Americans are only slowly coming around to that. He’s had some big national security wins, but with the focus on the economy and jobs, the President is not getting a lot of credit.

And, there is also the focus on the Republican candidates vying to challenge the President in the fall. All of this is something President Obama has to contend with and could help explain why Americans are a little conflicted about their feelings towards him at the moment. He has some time before he has to convince the American public to re-elect him, but in order to do that he will need to work diligently to alter some of these views.

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding; NA indicates not asked in that year

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding; NA indicates not asked in that year

Methodology

This Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States between January 16 to 23, 2012 among 2,016 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with non response, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments.

Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

The article The Harris Poll of President Obama’s Performance Shows Mixed Feelings appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Dr. Scott Noren, U.S. Senate candidate, NY has decided to demonstrate against Time Warner Media of NY and it’s political show, Capital Tonight. He will be doing this by means of an aerial banner message on February 06 at 2:30 pm.

Dr. Noren was registered as the sole challenger to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in early Spring of 2011, well before Suffolk County Comptroller George Maragos declared. Time Warner and Gannett Media, influenced by his own Democratic Party, has ‘blacked-out’ his campaign in his opinion.

“If you don’t have millions of dollars to spend, you don’t get as many interviews,” says Dr. Noren. He feels that an outside the box type media campaign is the only way to reach more people at this time. “The public should know who is running and what they stand for,” says Noren.

Dr. Noren, states that “the need for a strong voice from a third party, and real grassroots candidate that is truly not Party or corporately underwritten is what ‘street’ Democrats and Independents are looking for.”

He will represent a political action movement that enables the middle class to have a truly independent voice in business, health care and reducing corporate greed. He is a registered Democrat but will be running as an Independent candidate.

Dr. Noren is focused especially on health care issues emphasizing personal responsibility, insurance premium affordability and provider ethics. “Without affordable health care, jobs in NY and nationwide will not be replaced and grow.” He is for a complete Federal ban on hydrofracking of natural gas and feels that allowing fracking could invite a major drinking water disaster as well as ruining tourism, farming and wineries in the Fingerlakes.

Dr. Noren feels one way to increase job creation is through smaller, interest-free business loans that don’t involve banks directly. He also thinks that passing more Free Trade agreements like both sides of the aisle did recently, kills jobs and takes them overseas. Dr. Noren said that “although it takes money to campaign, millions of dollars are wasted yearly on campaigns that could be used to stimulate job growth here domestically.” Overturn of Citizen’s United and getting rid of “Victory Funds” is a must. His web site is very specific on many campaign issues.

For more information see Dr. Noren’s Senate web site at: http://www.norenforsenate.com

The article Senate Candidate Dr. Scott Noren to “Occupy Time Warner Media” appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In the current political environment the job market continues to be one of the more important topics.  And, for the first time in months, Americans are indicating that the job market in their region of the country may be improving, albeit slightly.

In January 2012 14% of U.S. adults said that the job market in their region of the country is good, which is up from 9% who said so in October 2011, 11% who said so in September and 12% who said so two months earlier in July 2011.  The number of Americans who call the job market in their region bad has also dropped this month, to 65%, down from 67% who said so in October 2011.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,016 adults surveyed online between January 16 and 23, 2012 by Harris Interactive .Although these numbers are still low overall, with almost two thirds calling the job market in their region bad (65%) and one in five saying it’s neither good nor bad (21%), a minor increase is important, and may be reflective of real change.

Looking across the country it appears that the job markets in the East and South are the best, as 15% and 16% in those regions respectively say that the market there is good, while the Midwest and West may be struggling more—over two thirds in the Midwest (67%) and West (71%) call the job market in their region bad.

Further evidence that the national job market may be improving is the response seen when Americans were asked how they think the job market in their region will change over the next 6 months.  For the first time since March 2011 more people say that the job market in their region will be better—27% say so now, compared to 22% in July.  While this number shows an increase, it’s still lower than the three in ten who expected the job market to improve when asked during the first half of 2011 (30%-32% said so between January and May 2011).

Looking by political party there are stark differences in attitudes regarding the future of the job market—Democrats show significantly more optimism than do either Independents or Republicans.

Fully two in five Democrats expect that the job market will improve over the next 6 months (41%) compared to 24% of Independents and only 14% of Republicans who say the same.  Republicans and Independents are most likely to say that they think the job market will stay the same (56% and 55%).

This optimism about the job market may be related to perceived blame for the state of the economy.  When asked how much each of the following groups are to blame for their financial situation, a large majority of Republicans (84%) and over half of Independents (55%) say they blame the President.  This compares to fewer than one third of Democrats who say the same (30%).  When asked about other groups’ blame for the current financial situation some of the results include:

• Large majorities of Americans say they blame Congress (81%) and Wall Street (70%) for their financial situation;
• Two thirds say they blame large corporations (66%), fewer say they blame state government (62%) or the President (56%) and less than half say they blame local government (48%).

Similarly to how partisan differences may account for how much someone blames the President for their financial situation, Democrats are also significantly less likely than both Republicans and Independents to give President Obama negative ratings on his handling of the economy.

Overall one quarter of Americans say President Obama’s handling of the economy is excellent or very good (25%) while three quarters say it is only fair or poor (75%).  These numbers are unchanged since December 2011 despite the other improvements seen in perceptions of the job market.

The article Slight Improvement in American Local Job Markets appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The long-awaited No Labels Anthem is now featured in the iTunes Music Store and available for purchase for 99 cents. Written by Grammy award-winning platinum artist Akon and performed by Grammy-nominated platinum artist Deborah Cox, the song’s proceeds will help fund No Labels, a citizens’ movement of Democrats, Republicans and Independents by empowering our leaders to work across the aisle.

Recently, No Labels launched its Make Congress Work! action plan, which features a dozen common sense proposals to combat the gridlock and hyper partisanship that make it virtually impossible to deal with America’s serious challenges.

“When I told Akon about No Labels, he was so inspired that he stayed up all night to write this song,” said No Labels co-founder Lisa Borders. “The No Labels Anthem speaks to our fellow citizens of every persuasion who are not being served by a partisan, dysfunctional Congress. We want our leaders to work together – like the words and melody of this iconic song – to do what’s best for the ‘indivisible’ United States of America.”

“The No Labels mission moved me to get involved and perform this song,” said Cox, who has 11 number-one Billboard dance singles. “To citizens like me, Congress is like an orchestra where every member is trying to play their instrument louder than the next. That makes for bad music and its made for bad government. Our leaders need to put aside their differences and work together for the good of the country.”

The No Labels Anthem debuts on the day of the president’s State of the Union address, where over 196 members of Congress will be sitting with members of the opposite party. No Labels has made bipartisan seating at the State of the Union and all joint meetings of Congress one of the 12 proposals in its Make Congress Work! action plan.

Miguel Campos / Shutterstock.com

The article No Labels Anthem: Music for the Movement Debuts appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie renewed his commitment to enacting strong school choice legislation for students in failing school districts during his annual State of the State speech at the State Capitol in Trenton.

The American Federation for Children—the nation’s voice for school choice—praised the governor’s speech as a call to all elected officials to put politics aside and enact legislation that will allow thousands of Garden State students to attend the school of their parents’ choice.

Governor Christie urged legislators to pass the Opportunity Scholarship Act (OSA), which has bipartisan support in the legislature and would create a scholarship tax credit program for children in low-income families who are currently trapped in the state’s lowest performing school districts.

“We applaud Governor Christie for continuing to fight for expanding educational options and his strong commitment to the Opportunity Scholarship Act,” said Betsy DeVos, chairman of the American Federation for Children. “Thousands of families across the state stand with Governor Christie in calling for passage of this important legislation.”

While Christie said he will pursue many education reforms in 2012—including expanding access to charter schools and teacher tenure reform—he made enacting the OSA one of the focuses of his 2012 agenda.

“Opportunity should not be offered to only those in an excellent school district or with parents who have the money to release their children from the prison that is a failing school,” the Governor said during his speech. “Let’s pass the opportunity scholarship act now.” Christie has been a long-time supporter of school choice since taking over as governor two years ago.

In 2010, he was the keynote speaker at the American Federation for Children’s first annual policy summit. ”Democrats including Senators Lesniak and Ruiz, Assemblymen Fuentes and Greenwald, long-time party leaders like George Norcross, and Newark Mayor Cory Booker have voiced their strong support for giving low-income parents this critically important option,” said Kevin P. Chavous, a senior advisor to the American Federation for Children.

“With bipartisan support in the legislature and support from the Governor, it’s time for New Jersey to pass the Opportunity Scholarship Act and give these disadvantaged children immediate hope for a brighter future.”

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/megwhitman2010/

The article New Jersey Governor Calls for Expansive School Choice appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Even as presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, readies for the South Carolina primary after soundly winning the New Hampshire primary, both the Obama reelection campaign and the Occupy Wall Street crowd he hopes to capitalize on are sharpening the knives of wealth envy.

As the 2011 year closed, the media remained obsessed with the Occupy Wall Street protests. Not a day went by without video of the protesters camping out, clashing with police, or some soft-peddled story on the merits of the protests. Absent are all the admonitions hurled toward the Tea Party for loudly denouncing the Obama Care Law or the president’s insistence on spending more and more money in debt to somehow magically create a positive economy.

Make no mistake, however, just as the Tea Party galvanized opposition against the policies of the Obama administration from fiscal conservatives, so too, does the president hope to utilize the Occupy movement in a similar fashion in the 2012 presidential election. The contrast between the two movements is stark.

There were hundreds of Tea Party rallies, marches, and protests throughout the country in 2010. Yet, not a single venue was trashed, the streets, avenues, and parks were left in pristine condition, and the only reported police arrest occurred in the beginning of the movement, when three white Union members attacked an African-American male in a wheelchair.

Occupy Wall Street, however, has had rapes, shootings, drug use, assaults, and have pretty much used the parks as their own private bathrooms. There has been violence in every city in which an Occupy movement has occurred, and the only word from the mainstream media has been the talking point of not unfairly assessing the Occupiers through the actions of a few bad apples. The hypocrisy is larger than the increase in the national debt, but is not even the worse problem.

There is no single overwhelming theme or idea from Occupy Wall Street, but the one thing they do seem to hate is what they consider to be income inequality. That they are the 99 percent versus the 1 percent has become the mantra, and the 1 percent are not paying their fair share. There is a call for a more even distribution of income and assets.

The ideas for this range from higher taxes to socialism and to out-right communism. What I find annoying is the idea that there should be income equality to begin with and the underlying idea that the rich have an unfair advantage. The reality, of course, is that life is not fair. We are not all given the same or equal attributes.

Some people are born ugly and others beautiful. Some people are born smart, others have average intelligence, and some people are just born dumb. Some are tall; some are small. And yes, some people are born rich, and some are born poor. It is a fact of life. What is also a fact, however, is that the vast majority of people in the top one percent of income earners were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

In the 1920′s, well over 80 percent of the wealth in the country was gained through inheritance. A person was born, and if they hit the cosmic lottery, their parents were a Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, or a Kennedy. In 2010, the percentage of wealth gained through inheritance is two percent. The vast majority of the people in the top income and asset brackets were not born that way. They earned it in their lifetimes.

They did this through opening businesses or obtaining professional degrees, like becoming doctors (doctors make up most of people in the top one percent), or by savvy and patient investment. Any way you cut it, they were not handed their incomes and wealth through some lotto ticket. However, the occupiers, which are more like ‘whiners’, act as if someone handed these millionaires and billionaires their money.

They never stop and ask themselves whether they are willing to do the things, make the sacrifices, risk their capital, their health, and or their marriage in pursuit of a business or profession that leads to wealth. The answer to that question is clearly no. If they were willing to do those things, they would not be camped out in a park, defecating in the street, and bitching about someone else’s money.

Yet, it is obvious from the calls for “income equality” that these people want the money that the one percent have. Thus far, none have given a single logical reason why they deserve it. Sure, the general idea of fairness can make many people sympathize with the protesters. After all, no one feels sorry for a billionaire.

However, what is fair about someone working 70 hours a week to start a business that takes ten years to build, having to shell over their money to a twenty-something or thirty-something year old that does not want to make the same sacrifices?  If you use a sports analogy, why would an NFL team with the worse record deserve a part of the Super Bowl trophy? We all know the answer is a that they do not deserve it. Yet, many are duped into thinking that they have some divine right to the fruits of someone else’s labors.

It is unimportant that the top 1 percent owns upwards of 25 percent of the wealth in the country. They deserve it, and they own it because when you “own” as opposed to being a worker bee, your wealth and income are magnified. The beauty of America is that if you do not like what you earn, you can do things to earn more. Nowhere else in this world is it so easy to move up in both income and class without the right political or social connections.

Can you do that in China, Cuba, Russia, or India? No! In America, you can, and the proof of that is the people who make up the one percent. Go back 10 or 15 years, and the people there today were not there back then.

If you are part of the 99 percent, then the question is, “What have you done today, this week, this month, and this year to increase your wealth? What have you done to affect your income level?” If the answer is nothing, then Herman Cain is right, and you are poor because of yourself. It is no one’s fault, but your own.

As we have seen over the last few years, personal accountability has become a lost value for many in this country, especially for the spoiled children of baby boomers who expected the world to give them a silver spoon- even if it means taking it by force from someone else.

Image Courtesy of    http://www.flickr.com/photos/atomische/

The article The Occupy Wall Street Lie appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell announced on January 9 an expansive education reform agenda for the 2012 legislative session that is poised to significantly expand educational options through creation of a scholarship tax credit program for the state’s low-income families.

The American Federation for Children—the nation’s voice for school choice—praised the governor’s plan, which places a strong emphasis on providing all children with educational opportunities, including  private school choice and robust charter and virtual school options.

McDonnell has long been a strong supporter of expanding educational options for children.  The scholarship tax credit program has also been championed in the legislature by Delegate Jimmie Massie and Senator Mark Obenshain in recent years.

“We’re grateful that Gov. McDonnell has included scholarship tax credits for children in low-income families in his 2012 legislative agenda. The Governor and legislative supporters are putting children first by offering hope to thousands of struggling students throughout the Commonwealth,” said Betsy Devos, chairman of the American Federation for Children. “The governor and legislative leaders have pledged to stand with parents and reformers to ensure that every child in Virginia has access to a quality education.”

Called “an effective choice” by the governor, the scholarship tax credit program would allow businesses to donate money to non-profit organizations that provide scholarships to children from low-income families to attend the school of their parents’ choice.  Last year, legislation for a scholarship tax credit program passed the House 54-45 before failing in the Senate.

In addition to scholarship tax credits, the education reform package focused on creating an “opportunity to learn agenda” through expanded charter and virtual school opportunities. These initiatives include making it easier for charters to form and operate in the state, ensuring local school boards make unused buildings available to charter schools, clarifying the funding formula so that funding “follows the child,” and allowing additional accreditation options for virtual schools.

Governor McDonnell also pledged to focus on raising standards of college and workforce readiness, reducing mandates on local school districts, and enhancing teacher quality.

Virginia residents have expressed strong bipartisan support for school choice, with 64 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of Republicans, and 66 percent of Independents favoring creation of a scholarship tax credit program, according to a 2009 poll conducted by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/

The article Virginia Governor Announces Education Reforms appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

As the Republican primaries near, Zoosk, a romantic social network, recently surveyed more than 4,000 U.S. singles to gather their thoughts on the presidential candidates.  Questions ranged from which candidate has the best hairdo, to which contending couple would make for the best double date, and to who has the best sense of humor.  The survey findings resulted in the following:

Singles say the Obamas would be their first choice couple for a double date.

• 38% of singles say they would choose a double date with the Obamas over any of the other presidential candidate couples.
• 16% of singles would choose to enjoy an evening out with the Bachmanns for a double date.
• 9% of singles would pick the Pauls.  The Gingrichs, Perrys, and Romneys each received 8% of singles’ vote for double date companions.

Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney have the “best hairdos” among the Republican candidates.

• 35% of singles give Michele Bachmann their vote for best hairstyle. She is followed by Mitt Romney (21%) and Rick Perry (15%).
• Rick Santorum received the fewest votes for his “do,” nabbing just 4% of the vote.

Republican men prefer Newt Gingrich, while Republican women prefer Mitt Romney for the GOP nominee. When asked, “If you were to vote today, who would receive your vote?”…

• Republican men gravitated towards Newt Gingrich with 33% of men saying the former Speaker of the House is their top choice compared to 18% of men who would choose Romney.
• Republican women have a slight preference for Mitt Romney with the former Governor of Massachusetts gathering 25% of the Republican female votes compared to 24% of women who would chose Gingrich.

Who is the “sexiest” candidate?

• Clearly, Michele Bachmann gets the sexiest female candidate vote, but 41% of single women say President Obama is the sexiest candidate among the 2012 contenders.

Singles vote President Barack Obama as having the “best sense of humor” among the candidates.

• 30% of singles say President Obama has the best sense of humor among all the presidential candidates.
• 15% of singles prefer Newt Gingrich’s humor.
• Tied for third place with 12% each of the “best sense of humor” vote are Rick Perry and Ron Paul.

Singles wish Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were on the ballot.

• When asked who they wish were on the ballot in 2012, 57% of singles who identify themselves as Democrats and 30% of singles who identify themselves as Independents say Hillary Clinton.
• 30% of single Republicans say they wish Donald Trump were running for president in 2012.

More singles than ever plan to vote in the 2012 presidential election.

• Compared to 64% of Americans who voted in the 2008 presidential election, singles are a politically active group. An equal percentage of single men and women (87%) say they plan to vote next year.

The data for this report was conducted online in December 2011 and fielded 4,218 responses from singles in the U.S. who use Zoosk.  Respondents were equally divided among political parties with 30% being Democrat, 34% being Republican, and 36% being Independent.

The article Survey Finds Obamas Are America’s First Choice for a Double Date appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Speaking to Congress in Washington yesterday, President Barack Obama outlined the centerpiece of his re-election campaign in the form of a $447bn jobs package designed to alleviate the deflated US economy.

Following the painful deadlock this summer over the debt crisis, Obama made sure to urge swift agreement between the Democrats and the Republicans: “The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy.”

In the televised joint session, Obama proposed a package of targeted tax cuts and government spending which aim at reviving the American job market. Unemployment rates has been steady at 9% or above for more than two years now, the voters are frustrated and the President saw fit to call the situation a ‘national crisis’.

Bloomberg reports that the package includes a $105 billion infrastructure proposal for school modernization, transportation projects and rehabilitation of vacant properties. Infrastructure spendings are expected to deliver most of its economic impact next year while some areas have to wait until 2013.

The president explained that he expects the recovery to be driven by businesses and workers — not by Washington. Instead, the administration is gearing up to help from the sideline. An estimated $35 billion is proposed as direct aid to state and local governments to stem layoffs of educators and emergency personnel, according to Bloomberg.

Furthermore, the main targets of the package will be the workers and small business owners who would be able to look forward to cuts in payroll taxes as an incentive for new hiring and development.

A final highlight proposes to grant states the authority to pay unemployment benefits to people who have been out of work for more than six months while they train for jobs at businesses for up to eight weeks. To encourage employers to take in these long-term unemployed, the unemployment-insurance funds will make sure the training will be at no cost to the business.

Obama’s proposal was met with both standing ovation and stony silence but some Republicans were willing to admit that the package promoted some common ground. Eric Cantor, House Majority Leader and a frequent critic of Obama, said that areas such as extending the payroll tax and especially the tax reduction for small businesses did appeal to Republican politics.

“That’s something we Republicans have been advocating for quite some time now,” he said to Bloomberg.

Anna Frajtova / Shutterstock.com

The article President Obama Kicks Off Election Trail with $447bn Jobs Plan appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is all about talking the talk, but does not follow his own advice. After the Associated Press obtained state records under the Freedom of Information Act, it was discovered that Cuomo used the state aircraft for personal travels.

Although Cuomo may be entitled to use the state plane, it doesn’t sit well in the state that is threatened by his office to be decimated by budget cuts. While the governor was advocating massive state cuts that would destroy education and the infrastructure, Cuomo was traveling to Westchester County to visit his girlfriend on the state’s dime.

The records show Cuomo used a state plane and helicopter to return to Westchester County at the end of statewide tours more than a dozen times from when he took office in January through June, the end of his first legislative session. The state plane was then flown from Westchester, where Cuomo lives with his girlfriend, to the capital of Albany to return the aircraft to its hangar as required.

Even though Cuomo used state aircraft far less than his predecessors, there is no record of any politicking or fundraising in the trips.  According to state law, the governor is allowed to use the aircraft  only for “official events.” This includes his trips Westchester home, which the Democrat lists as his official address, Cuomo spokesman Josh Vlasto said Saturday.

Cuomo’s girlfriend Sandra Lee owns the home, and Cuomo’s daughters live there much of the time. Cuomo himself spends far more time at the executive mansion in Albany than other recent governors.

“The governor uses the plane in furtherance of state business,” Vlasto said. “Every trip is approved by the counsel’s office and the secretary to the governor and to the extent Governor Cuomo’s use of the plane is noteworthy, it’s for its limited use and anyone familiar with the relevant law or practice would know that.It’s outrageous that due to an apparent lack of news, The Associated Press has now decided to fabricate stories.”

Even though this may be a normal and common practice, it seems to be hypocritical. At a time when politicians keep talking about “sacrifice” and “budget cuts,” it appears the only people they are talking about is the middle and lower class.

Apparently, the rich or politicians do not have to sacrifice at all. Cuomo could make the two hour drive from Westchester to Albany and it would not disrupt his life too much.

lev radin / Shutterstock.com

The article Governor Cuomo Uses State Plane-Real Story or Pretend Controversy? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

With the prospect of a debt default looming just over the horizon, the House of Representatives tonight passed compromise legislation to raise the debt ceiling.

The House voted in favor of the bill by a margin of 269-161 after a dramatic day of legislative wrangling on Capitol Hill. Although the compromise was announced last night, the leaders of both parties had to spend much of today trying to win over their respective caucuses.

The bill is essentially a modified version of John Boehner’s (R-OH) plan, which passed the House last week. It would immediately raise the debt ceiling by $400 billion, while allowing President Obama to order a $500 billion increase in the fall, unless both houses of Congress vote to block it. It also imposes spending cuts of $1 trillion by setting ten-year caps on the budgets of Cabinet agencies.

A further debt ceiling increase of up to $1.5 trillion will be granted if Congress can offset it through additional spending cuts. A special bipartisan committee of both houses will be responsible for proposing these cuts, but if the committee cannot agree or Congress does not enact their proposals, the White House will be empowered to order across-the-board cuts, including reductions in defense spending and farm subsidies. However, the debt ceiling increase could still go through if Congress approves a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution and sends it to the states for ratification.

Neither side ended up truly winning the day. While Obama and the Democrats got their wish for a debt ceiling increase that will see them through the 2012 election, they will not be able to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to reduce the debt. And while the Republicans succeeded in wringing deep spending cuts from the Democrats, the agreed-upon cuts are not as deep as the ones the House passed last week. It is also far from certain that a balanced-budget amendment will actually go to the states since it is no longer required in order to raise the debt ceiling.

Like most compromises, this one was not to everyone’s liking. Presidential hopeful Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) announced her intention to vote against the bill, claiming that it did not cut spending enough. “Someone has to say no, I will,” she said.

At the other end of the political spectrum, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ), also lambasted the bill. “This deal weakens the Democratic Party as badly as it weakens the country. We have given much and received nothing in return,” he said.

The Senate will likely take up the bill tomorrow, where it is almost certain to pass, given the bipartisan show of support in the House and the fact that a debt default could be just around the corner if they balk.

The article House Passes Debt Ceiling Increase: No True Winner appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The House of Representatives has passed the Budget Control Act proposed by their Speaker, John Boehner (R-OH), by a vote of 218-210.

The bill passed without any support from the Democrats and, despite an intensive lobbying effort by Boehner and the rest of the House GOP leadership, twenty-two Republicans broke ranks to vote against it as well.

Speaking in support of his bill, Boehner said that he “stuck my neck out a mile trying to get an agreement with the president of the United States. I stuck my neck out a mile. And I put revenues on the table in order to try to come to an agreement to avert us being where we are.”

“But a lot of people in this town can never say yes. This house has acted and it is time for this administration to put something on the table, tell us where you are,” he continued.

The House was originally supposed to vote on the bill last Thursday, but Boehner abruptly postponed the vote at the last minute when it became apparent that he did not have enough support. Another round of intensive arm-twisting ensued, and Boehner agreed to tweak the bill to make it more palatable to the Tea Party faction of his caucus.

The original bill called for a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling and spending cuts worth $917 billion. This increase would only tide the government over until 2012, at which point the issue would have to be revisited. However, Boehner’s legislation contained provisions for a bipartisan committee to come up with further spending cuts, at which point the debt ceiling could be raised again. As a result of pressure from the Tea Partiers, Boehner agreed to a further amendment that would require Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and send it to the states for ratification before the debt ceiling could be raised a second time.

Once the bill arrived in the Senate, Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) moved to ‘table’ (i.e. kill) it. That motion was agreed to by a vote of 59-41 that saw several Republican senators join the Democrats in opposing Boehner’s plan. Now the Senate will likely turn its attention to Reid’s own proposal to solve the debt ceiling crisis, with a final vote likely to occur sometime during the early hours of Sunday morning. But it is almost certain to receive a chilly welcome from the House, and, with only days to go before the August 2^nd deadline, a solution to the debt crisis seems as remote as ever.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/republicanconference/

The article John Boehner’s Budget Control Act Passes Dies in The Senate appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

As the deadline for the debt ceiling draws near, the insane and pointless debate continues. Dragging out the inevitable raising of the debt ceiling is extremely dangerous. Never before has the U.S. economy come so close to reaching the debt ceiling. Never before have politicians played this game of chicken with the debt in order to get their way. The latest GOP plan asks for huge and immediate spending cuts in all discretionary spending in exchange for only a six-month debt ceiling increase.  That is insane by anyone’s measures.

Furthermore, spending cuts during a recession is asinine. Every other economic slump that America has been in has been solved by government spending. The government operates differently than a household budget so let’s stop making that comparison. Yes, if I am in debt I will reduce my spending. But, I am not responsible for 300 million citizens. I reduce my spending and it only affects me, my husband and pets. If American utilizes these big spending cuts that BOTH parties are now entertaining, it will increase unemployment further draining states’ economies.  When states cut services, as many already have, like unemployment and food stamps, people are homeless, hungry and aren’t spending money. The economic recession that we have been struggling to get out of for years quickly becomes a depression with spending cuts. When average families do not have money to spend, businesses will lay off people. Factories will close. The tax revenue that the United States gets will decrease even further as less and less people are working. Houses will not sell. The economy will come to a complete stand still. Don’t believe me? Nobel Prize winner economist Robert Reich states the same thing.

Not raising the debt ceiling is stupid. I cannot figure out why, in this fragile economy, the Republicans want to mess with this. The GOP was elected last November with their vague promises of creating “jobs, jobs jobs.” Nothing will cause jobs to disappear faster than this plan of raising the debt ceiling for six months while cutting spending and hurting average Americans. If the debt reduction is so important, there is no plausible explanation on why taxes aren’t being raised. I don’t want to pay more taxes, but if the GOP wants to reduce the deficit, you really have to increase taxes. It is just common sense. The Republicans state that raising taxes on the wealthy will somehow make the economy tank. But, that is the ass backwards trickle down crap that has never, ever worked. The rich people spend the same amount of money whether their tax rate is 35 percent or 50 percent. The average family though will not spend money if they are unemployed. But, they certainly will spend if they have money which will increase the economy leading business owners to hire. Business owners do not add employees just because they have extra money. THAT IS THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD. Employees are only hired if there is a DEMAND. No demand if people don’t have money. This is so simple it makes me want to scream.

Hopefully, the voters will figure out simple economics and encourage their representatives to take a crash course before the U.S. falls off the cliff. Once we default on our loans, there is no turning back. The end results will be disastrous for everyone involved.  We are in a barrel and Niagara Falls is coming up quickly.

The article Op-Ed: Raise the Freakin Debt Ceiling, You Morons appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) addressed the nation in a televised speech following the president’s remarks on the debt ceiling. Boehner accused Obama of creating a “crisis atmosphere.” He asked the president to sign the newly unveiled GOP plan that would temporary increase the debt ceiling.

“Obviously, I expect that bill can and will pass the Senate and be sent to the president for a signature,” Boehner said. “If the president signs it, the crisis atmosphere he has created will simply disappear.”

“You see, there’s no stalemate in Congress,” Boehner argued. “The House passed a bill to raise the debt limit with bipartisan support, and this week while the Senate is struggling to pass a bill filled with phony accounting and Washington gimmicks, we’re going to pass another bill, one developed in support of the Washington leadership of the U.S. Senate.”

John Boehner is referring to the “Cut, Cap and Balance” Act that would require deep cuts in Medicare and Social Security. The legislation is highly unlikely to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate and Obama has already stated that he would veto the proposal.

“The sad truth is the president wanted a blank check six months ago and wants a blank check today,” Boehner added. “That is just not going to happen.”

John Boehner said in his remarks that “the United States cannot default on its debt obligations,” agreeing with President Obama and Democrats’ insistence that the debt limit be raised. But he stated that the Democrats are unwilling to compromise by passing the House GOP legislation, saying “the president would not take yes for an answer.”

“Even when we thought we might be close on an agreement, the president’s demands changed,” Boehner said, a likely reference to Obama’s call for greater revenues as part of a “grand bargain” deal that would have reduced the deficit by up to $4 trillion. Boehner walked away from that effort Friday.

The new Republican plan that was released earlier on Monday would require immediate cuts in discretionary spending, touted as saving $1.2 trillion over a decade. In exchange, the debt ceiling would be raised by less than $1 trillion, a six month temporary plan. The GOP plan would also create a “Joint Committee of Congress” that would identify $1.6 to $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade.

Democrats call the House Republican plan a “non-starter” because it would require another debt limit fight before the end of next year. “Does anyone think it would be a good idea to do this all over again in six months?” Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said Monday.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerboehner/

The article John Boehner Accuses Obama of Creating a “Crisis Atmosphere” appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In a bid to end the protracted stalemate over raising the debt ceiling, President Obama and senior Democrats have met to hash out a solution that they hope will be palatable to the Republicans.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) unveiled the Democrats’ plan on Sunday night after the latest round of talks with Republicans broke down. It offers a $2.7 trillion package of cuts, an increase in the debt ceiling through 2012, and (perhaps most crucially) none of the tax increases that Republicans found so galling.

“We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his ‘my way or the highway’ approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines,” Reid said in a statement.

The Democrats’ maneuver comes as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner (R-OH), announced that the Republicans would press for a short-term increase to the debt ceiling along with $3-4 trillion-worth of spending cuts and a program of long-term deficit reduction.

Under US law, Congress sets a maximum cap on the amount of money that the government can borrow. Currently, that cap is set at $14.294 trillion. On August 2, the government is projected to reach that cap and, according to the US Treasury, failing to increase the debt ceiling would leave the government in default of its obligations.

Although both Republicans and Democrats agree in principle that a default would be a bad thing, many Republicans are eager to use the issue as leverage in their bid to achieve their long-term financial objectives. Spurred on by the Tea Party, the Republicans want to see drastic spending cuts put in place before any increase in the debt ceiling is voted through. Because they control the House of Representatives, a certain amount of bipartisan agreement is essential before any plan can pass into law.

Vice President Joe Biden led bipartisan talks aimed at finding common ground which produced a plan for $1.5 trillion in cuts over 10 years, mostly through discretionary spending. But further agreement proved impossible when the Republican participants refused to countenance any tax increases.

Last week, the Republican-controlled House passed the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. It would have cut total spending by $111 billion in Fiscal Year 2012 and scaled back total federal spending by a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product. Also, it would have increased the debt ceiling, provided that the states ratified a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Obama made it quite clear that he would veto the act if it ever reached his desk, but it ended up dying in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

No doubt the president and his party leaders hope that their latest proposal will win the Republicans’ approval by giving them much of what they have been clamoring for. Even if this plan becomes law, America’s credit rating may still be downgraded, which could result in higher interest rates for mortgages, credit cards, and student loans.

The article Obama, Democrats Unveil New Debt Plan appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

By now, if you have been reading the news lately, the story about Representative Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-New York) and his lewd picture on Twitter would catch your attention. In brief, on the evening of May 27, a lewd photo of a man’s bulging underwear was sent to a 21-year-old female college student in Seattle from Weiner’s Twitter account.

Although it was deleted extremely quickly, lots of Twitter users and other means of news and media outlets could see it. Weiner’s spokesman immediately claimed that his Twitter account had been hacked and he was just a victim of a photo prank; they needed time to conduct an internal investigation to find out what had occurred to Weiner’s account.

However, after 10 days of denialsa choked-up Weiner confessed that he tweeted this photo of himself.  He further admitted that over the past three years to having“inappropriate” and sometimes explicit exchanges with six women he met online through the social network sites like Twitter or Facebook, before and after his marriage.

Even though with a hugely regrettably attitude,Weiner wiped his eyes during the conference, it may be too difficult to forgive his lies when he got caught and his attempt to cover up by blaming someone else for his misconduct.  And despite all of this, he said he won’t resign but one week after his confession many House Democrats are calling for his resignation and even President Obama,commented on the scandal.

So now, the question is what is happening with the other Congress members since the Weiner’s Internet Affair? It is shown that Republicans are avoiding Twitter altogether or at least they are much more cautious with any action on social networking.

TweetCongress, a site aggregating tweets from members of Congress, looked at the Twitter activities of Democrats and Republicans from May 9 to June 8, with weekends excluded, and found out that tweets from members of both parties are down roughly 30% since Weiner’s lewd photo. Perhaps the Congress people did learn the lesson not to have inappropriate romantic relationship on Twitter and that is the reduction we are seeing, not just avoiding Twitter altogether. Nope, it is just a joke.

In the end, we all know that the “Weinergate” drama is going to die-off like many scandals due to gaffes on political social media account; nevertheless, the bottom line is the valuable social media lessons politicians should learn fromRep. Weiner’s Twitter failure.

The first islearning how to use social media. Before posting, tweeting and using any apps, you have to be sure to use the platform correctly; otherwise it’s easy to make a mistake. Don’t be wrong between sending a private message and sharing it in public. Remember that it’s a social network- you send something through a private message, that doesn’t mean the person receiving the information will not publicize the content with one simple click.

Secondly, deliberate on the message you want to share. If you’re sharing something through social media, you should think twice in order to make sure whether or not it’s appropriate.

Last but not least, you must to be honest. Anyone can make a mistake, even famous politicians.Lying just makes everything more mess-up and difficult to resolve. You know that the hardest thing in the world is to regain people’s trust therefore telling the truth should be prioritized.

The article After Weinergate Scandal, Did Congress Members Learn Anything? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Through the centuries immigration has been a major source to the United States’ growth and development. But it has been also, and it is still, a source of controversy and conflict.

One of the biggest problems tied to immigration in US is the large number of illegal immigrants which outnumbered the legals one. A 2011 survey showed that the illegal immigrants living in the United States in 2010 were about 11.2 million – a number essentially unchanged from the previous year -.

In the controversy about this fundamental issue, either Democrats and Republicans agreed over the years on the need to make changes to the federal immigration laws to face this problem. But essentially just in 2010, after the passage of a new immigration bill in Arizona, the need of a reform in this field has came back to light and has become the subject of discussion.

The Arizona immigration bill, the toughest of the nation about illegal immigration, was signed on April 2010.It required state and local police officers to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they stop if they have a “reasonable suspicion” the person is an illegal It also makes it a state crime to not carry immigration papers. One day before to take effect, in July 28th, the bill was blocked by a judge who asserted the primary authority of the federal government over state lawmakers in immigration matters.

The bill was strongly criticized by President Obama who declared that it threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

Analysing the strategy of the Obama administration in matter of illegal immigration, it is clear that he is pursuing the programs started by the former President Bush administration, despite initially he pledged he would had moderated his predecessor ‘s policies.

Starting from the Bush administration’s policies Mr. Obama expanded a program to verify workers immigration status, replacing immigration raids at factories and farms with a different enforcement strategy sending federal agents to check companies’ records searching for illegal immigrant workers.

These kinds of audits don’t lead to the deportation of the illegal immigrants workers as in the past, but these are being usually fired. Since the beginning of this practice in 2009 thousands of suspected illegal immigrants workers have been fired.

The aim of this policy is to prevent future illegal immigration discouraging the employers to hire illegal immigrants and the immigrants to not cross the borders illegally being conscious of the difficulty of finding a job in those conditions. The effects of the enforcement of this strategy are evident mostly on the Mexican illegal immigration which seems to be reducing. Mexicans – that are the largest group of illegal immigrants – are delaying in crossing the United States borders illegally because of the current situation of low possibilities to find jobs, a considerable decline has been shown by the Mexican Government’s census data.

According to the Department of Homeland Security officials, in each of the last two years the number of immigrants who were deported is the highest in the country’s history, about 400,000.

Over the last months many states government all around US started advancing legislation proposals inspired to Arizona’s bill, with the aim to crack down on the illegal immigration penalizing the illegal immigrants. Mostly in the states under Republican control, this fact is due to the lack of consensus recorded by the Congress.

The debate on toughening up on strategies against illegal immigrants is stirring also the states that have usually been tolerant, that are proposing tougher measures in matter of illegal immigration.

The purpose is to make life so difficult for illegal immigrants to push them to go back to their own countries. As never before since 2006 the possibilities of these laws to be passed appear so high. Perhaps is something changing in the Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants or it is just a political manoeuvre? We will see if the 2012 elections would make reach a turning point on this issue.

The article Tougher Line Against Illegal Immigration appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.