Is Sarah Palin sinking her presidential hopes with ‘blood libel’ remark?

How a public figure handles themselves in a crisis is often an indication of what kind of leader they will make. Sarah Palin, with her eyes on the White House in 2012, may be taking the ultimate test in the aftermath of the Arizona shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

On January 8, 2011, Jared Loughner, 22, opened fired in a Safeway parking lot in Tucson, Arizona. He killed six people and wounded 14, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a democrat.

In the days following the shooting, Sarah Palin was criticized for having a map of democratic candidates on her website with a gun targets on specific states. Individual candidates were listed as targets. Gabrielle Giffords was one of them.

The map was taken down after the shooting.

On Wednesday, Palin wrote on her Facebook page, “…After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.”

A Palin staff member told Alaska radio Sunday that there was "nothing irresponsible" about the images of crosshairs used in a map of the 20 congressional districts targeted by Palin's PAC,” according to the Washington Post.

Palin went on to defend herself against media attacks, calling them, "blood libel," which is an anti-Semitic term that refers to Jewish rituals that involve killing, according to MSNBC.

Political pundits claim George W. Bush used his popularity during the September 11 World Trade Center attacks to will re-election. His widely criticized handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster contributed to his  extraordinary unfavorable ratings when he left office.

The Palin controversy over the Arizona shootings may leave a scar on the Palin political machine that the former Alaska governor may not recover from.

Tweet

GOP tax cut plan: Redistribution of wealth to the rich?

Throughout the current recession, those hurt the least have been the super rich. They are also the primary beneficiaries of the GOP tax cut deal with President Obama.

If America had a budget surplus the tax package might not be facing opposition. However, with the balance sheet nearly $14 trillion on the red, the United States budget deficit is at the center of this debate.

The Bush tax cuts, as all tax code manipulation, are a form of redistribution of wealth. Whether the discounts go to the rich or poor does not change the mechanics. The portion of the Obama tax bill compromise that applies to the rich will cost taxpayers $420 billion. Since the wealthy will be paying less, (percentage-wise) it is essentially a subsidy from the middle class and poor into the pockets of the rich.

Consensus among democrats and the American public according to a recent CBS News poll, says on the republican tax cut deal is not what the electorate wants; it’s bad for the country, will not create jobs, and will add more to the deficit than it’s worth.

Republicans have been conspicuously silent on the simplest solution to the tax cut debate, which is to pass the bill without the portion that applies to the top tax brackets.

The GOP refusal to cooperate has been called a form of hostage taking by opponents to the bill, including President Obama. Political commentators have hotly debated the pros and cons of the legislation, but few have called the bill what it actually is; a redistribution of wealth that favors multi-millionaires.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell said, “Remember what supply-side economics is. It is the promise that by cutting taxes, the treasury is going to collect more revenue because the economy will be so wildly stimulated by cutting taxes...But by cutting these taxes the treasury is going to collect less money…”

Mr. O’Donnell’s remarks are probably the most honest, realistic words ever spoken about  tax cut policy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Are Dem’s holding out hope for a deal on Obama tax cuts for middle class only?

Image via Wikipedia

Republicans have vowed to block any Democratic deals on extending the Bush tax cuts if they do not include an extension for wealthy people earning more than $250,000 a year. An extension of the tax cuts for the richest Americans will add $700 billion to the budget deficit, which goes against the GOP pledge to reduce America's debt.

“In an off-camera briefing with reporters on Wednesday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs deflected a question as to whether the administration would like to see a solitary vote on whether to keep the current rates for the middle class while letting those for the wealthy expire,” according to the Huffington Post. "I'd have to talk to [legislation] affairs office," he said.

That line of thinking does coincide with President Obama’s previous statements that keeping tax rates low on the middle class was his priority. However, Democrats have been widely criticized for their lack of resolve when it comes to defending their working class base.

If the Democrats were to force a vote on extending the Bush tax cuts only for people earning less than $250,000 a year, the Republicans would have to go after tax cuts for the rich through separate legislation. Trying to pass a bill that only benefits the rich will show the American public where the GOP’s loyalty really lies, and that will not win them many votes in the next general election.

The Bush tax cuts explained

Obama tax policy: Take from the poor and give to the rich

Image via Wikipedia

It could be called the worst form of corporate welfare in American history. At a time when the working class needs the leadership in Washington to stand up for them, President Obama seems ready and willing to sell out the base that elected him with a tax plan that looks a lot like steal from the poor and give it to the rich. 

 As such, Obama has made it clear that he is not acting like the liberal, socialist Democrat his Republican rivals have been accusing him of being. A loyal Democrat would not surrender on tax breaks for millionaires without a fight. But that is exactly what President Obama appears to be willing to do.

Obama admits that extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest people in America, “won’t significantly boost the economy, and it’s hugely expensive so we can’t afford it.” But instead of fighting for what he admits is not best for America, he is hiding behind verbal gymnastics by claiming that extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires is just fine, as long as they are not “permanent.”

The White House has not yet announced the details on exactly how long “temporary” is, but whatever length of time is finally decided, it will still be unfunded and add about $700 billion worth of borrowed money to the $13.7 trillion debt, on top of the $1.4 trillion dollar deficit.
The Republican Party and Tea Party candidates that ran on a fiscal responsibility platform are proving to be carpetbaggers who put one over on the American electorate. So much for “change” in Washington.

Related articles 

Newt Gingrich pushes GOP to cut Food Stamps as more Americans go hungry

 'Who will stand up to the superrich?' (americablog.com)  

Paul Krugman: Obama Didn't Fight Hard Enough Against Tax Cuts For The Rich (huffingtonpost.com)  

Deepwater Horizon: Oil spill disaster destined to be repeated

GOP plan to privatize Social Security gives US retirement future to Wall Street gamblers

Image via Wikipedia
Social Security is one of the most popular programs in America. Yet the GOP and Tea Party conservatives want to hand it over to Wall Street so it can become a profit generator for corporate gambling. No doubt the idea is being funded by lobbyists looking for easy money with loads and fees they can put on taxpayers' tabs. Why else would there be such a hard push to dismantle one of the most efficiently administrated government programs America has?

Out of every dollar that Social Security takes in, only .09 cents goes toward running the program. If Wall Street takes over, those costs will become fees of 5%, according to MSNBC.

Former president George W. Bush suggested privatizing Social Security in 2005. When the financial markets collapsed in 2008, retirement plans and 401K’s crashed along with the rest of the stock market, and millions were relieved that the Bush plan never went through. If it had, retired Americans might have lost their monthly checks entirely. Is this the path America really wants to take? Or do people simply not realize just how high the stakes are in giving Social Security to Wall Street?

People were outraged when CEO’s at taxpayer bailed-out financial institutions gave themselves multi-million dollar bonuses with TARP funds. Do they really want to give them even bigger bonuses with loads and fees tacked on to Wall Street controlled Social Security, or has anyone in favor of the GOP plan to privatize America’s future thought about that one?

Obama beats Bush in Presidental Poll

Image via Wikipedia

More Americans prefer President Barack ObamaBarack Obama over former President GeorGeorge W. BushBush according to a recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling   over former President . The study included 606 registered voters throughout the nation.

Those surveyed included 39% registered Democrats; 39% registered Republicans and 25% registered voters who are either Independents or have some other party affiliation. The poll was conducted between August 6-9, 2010.

Some of the survey questions included:
Would you rather have Barack Obama or George W. Bush as President right now?
Barack Obama................................................ 50%
George W. Bush ............................................. 43%
Not sure .......................................................... 7%

Do you approve or disapprove of Barack Obama's job performance?
Approve................. 47%
Disapprove............ 48%
Not sure ................ 5%

Out of the last 5 Presidents: Jimmy CarterJimmy Carter, Ronald ReaganRonald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill
Clinton, and George W. Bush, who do you think Barack Obama is most similar to?
Jimmy Carter .................................................. 35%
Ronald Reagan............................................... 6%
George H.W. Bush.......................................... 2%
Bill ClintonBill Clinton....................................................... 41%
George W. Bush ............................................. 2%
Not sure .......................................................... 15%

Would you describe yourself as a liberal, moderate, or conservative?
Liberal ............................................................. 19%
Moderate......................................................... 42%
Conservative................................................... 39%


Additional links:

Poll: BP oil spill disaster changes few minds on offshore oil drilling in Louisiana

Florida elections: Sarah Palin, Rand Paul use Tea Party movement to push conservative agenda

Economic instability creates threat of double dip recession 

Florida residents get false reports of vanishing oil in BP Gulf oil spill disaster

Google and Verizon want new FCC internet rules for ipads, smartphones, wireless devices

Florida politicians threaten to leave dead animals on road to balance budget

Alex Sink leads Rick Scott, Bill McCollum and Bud Chiles in Florida Governors race 

The Bush Tax Cuts Explained