http://kindlemag.in/srorys_details.php?id=NTM1&&displayid=MQ==
Subscribe to the KINDLE Weekly
The Magazine
Blogs
Audio | Video
About Us
Columns
Workshops & Events
Subscribe
Advertise
The Kindle Library
Kindle Magazine
kindlemag
kindlemag The Kindle Weekly#8 fb.me/2fvUy3ymC
6 minutes ago · reply · retweet · favorite
kindlemag The Kindle Weekly #8 - eepurl.com/sqI4f
6 minutes ago · reply · retweet · favorite
kindlemag Here's a small preview of our upcoming year-end issue,
featuring celebrated mathematician, @MarcusduSautoy
youtube.com/watch?v=lXqnY6…
yesterday · reply · retweet · favorite
kindlemag Want to know what's our year end gift to you? Here's
Soundcheck. Ep 3... fb.me/2lpuoERo8
yesterday · reply · retweet · favorite
Join the conversation
FOLLOW US
What We're Reading ........................................
Dial K for news
By The Hoot
Notes from the Underground
By GUERNICA
The Unsolved Mysteries of the Universe
By Kafila
........................................
| Politics & Society |
Einstein's Promised Land
By Saswat Pattanayak
2012-11-30
With the "God Letter" recently auctioned for over $3 million, the
world has started taking a renewed interest in Albert Einstein's core
philosophies. In the most conservative estimate, he has been described
as the father of modern physics; and by most liberal counts, the most
intelligent human being in history. But despite tremendous
biographical sketches, Einstein has remained largely unknown as an
activist, or terribly misunderstood as a statesman. Many dimensions of
his life have been deliberately suppressed, some grossly exaggerated,
and quite a few entirely concocted. This is quite natural considering
the ruling class elites have a stake in appropriation of his legacies
– the United States which granted him residency needed to use him for
its Cold War propaganda, while Israel and the Jewish Diaspora needed
to tout him – the most famous Jew in history - as their torchbearer.
The spiritual thinkers have cited him as irreverently religious, while
the progressives have owned him up for his idealistic socialism.
But this auctioned letter, handwritten by Einstein shortly before his
death, almost disturbed many such long-held conventional conclusions,
shattered many a comfortable myth and certainly exposed to the world
how little we knew about this man. If Einstein could compose such an
unsweetened critique of God and religion as the letter suggests, what
else about him do we not know? Who have been suppressing the
lesser-known dimensions about someone we define the word genius by?
Why has there been a need to distort the truths about the good
scientist to begin with?
The answers lie in the argumentative clarity and the sheer brilliance
that epitomized Einstein all his life – the naked truths our
convoluted and opportunistic world has never been prepared to brace
itself for. After all, it has always been more convenient to
hero-worship a critical thinker than delve into his/her necessary
prescriptions.
Although Einstein remained among the most well-known in history, he
stated toward the end of his life, how little value that held for him,
"Though everybody knows me, there are very few people who really know
me." Whether there is a historical necessity to really know Einstein
is an important question, increasing in relevance, as more and more of
the world is getting engaged in religious warfare, vocally supporting
Israeli terrorism, and has been actively embracing tenets of
capitalism. Irrespective of our intents, Albert Einstein, the
celebrated global citizen who most informedly analyzed international
relations, more than anyone else, still possesses the rigorously
tenable solutions to each of these crises.
To seek the answers, let's begin with the three million dollar letter,
and then proceed to locate his roots and evolution. In the "God
Letter" (1954), Einstein wrote, "The word God is, for me, nothing more
than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a
collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter, how
subtle, can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are
highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to
do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion, like all other
religions, is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And
the Jewish people, to whom I gladly belong, and with whose mentality I
have a deep affinity, have no different quality for me than all other
people… I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
Such outright rejection of God, Judaism and Israel in this letter have
raised many eyebrows, especially in a world that has been
systematically tutored so far to treat Einstein as per the 'decent'
norms of our day. Despite the worldwide attention to the content of
this letter, the truth is, it is far from sensational, and the
opinions therein are not exceptionally subversive, by Einstein's
standards. It is important to shatter the myths about Einstein's
feel-good pacifist humanism in favour of his true radicalized
communist activism, so that Einstein's worthwhile contributions are
made commonplace and they inspire revolutionaries world over as
originally intended, instead of merely enticing secret bidders on
auction websites.
Einstein's Zionism: For a Cultural Centre, not a Political State
Einstein never disowned his association with Zionism, although it is
important to note his definition of Zionism largely varied from the
ones commonly held during his own time, and now. He could easily have
succumbed to a reactionary (nationalist) variant of Zionism,
considering he was constantly victimized as a Jew, regardless of his
celebrity. But he consciously did not choose that path. In 1920, a
group of German scientists, led by Nobel Prize winner Philipp Lenard,
denounced the theory of relativity as a "Jewish perversion". Lenard
would go on to serve as Hitler's chief scientist, and the man to fund
this campaign to discredit Einstein's contributions would be later
unraveled as the American industrialist Henry Ford, a Nazi
collaborator. Remaining unprovoked however, Einstein declared the same
year: "I do not believe in anything that might be described as 'Jewish
faith'. But I am a Jew and am glad to belong to the Jewish people,
though I do not regard it in any way as chosen..."
Cognizant of the anti-semitism impacting Einstein's career and
legacies, Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann in 1921 asked Kurt Blumenfeld,
a top Zionist recruiter to "stir up Einstein". Blumenfeld sent back
Weizmann a warning - "Einstein, as you know, is no Zionist, and I ask
you not to try to make him a Zionist or to try to attach him to our
organization...Einstein, who leans to socialism, feels very involved
with the cause of Jewish labour and Jewish workers... I heard... that
you expect Einstein to give speeches. Please be quite careful with
that. Einstein... often says things out of naïveté which are unwelcome
by us."
Einstein required no stirring up, as he had already chosen the side of
the oppressed and without any hesitation accepted Weizmann's
invitation to travel to England and America, but duly noted, "In
several places, a high-tensioned Jewish nationalism shows itself that
threatens to degenerate into intolerance and bigotry; but hopefully
this is only an infantile disorder." Besides, Blumenfeld was clearly
wrong, for Einstein was no naive. He knew from his experiences that
"anti-Semitism is frequently a question of political calculation".
During his stay in Switzerland, he was not aware of his Jewishness and
he wrote, "There was nothing in my life that would have stirred my
Jewish sensibility and
stimulated it. This changed as soon as I took up residence in Berlin.
There I saw the plight of many young Jews, especially of East European
Jews. They are made the scapegoats for the malaise in present-day
German economic life... Meetings, conferences, newspapers press for
their quick removal or internment." When the German government
contemplated measures against East European Jews, Einstein protested
and exposed the "inhumanity and irrationality of these measures" in
the Berliner Tageblatt.
Einstein distinguished early on between the West European Jews and the
prevailing anti-Semitism targeting East European Jews. His support for
Soviet Union was strengthened based on how Stalin's policies welcomed
East European Jews into Soviet Union. And at the same time, between
the First World War and the Second, Einstein witnessed how racist
Germany was treating the East European Jewish refugees, and the
barbarity of it all would awaken his sense of belonging with the
oppressed race of the time. Although he could afford to, Einstein
refused to remain indifferent, and he refused to separate his
profession from his politics. Together with a few colleagues – both
Jews and non-Jews, he held university courses especially to benefit
the East European Jews in the summer of 1921 and he declared that
"such experiences have awakened my Jewish-national feelings. I am not
a Jew in the sense that I call for the preservation of the Jewish or
any other nationality as an end in itself... I consider raising Jewish
self-esteem essential, also in the interest of a natural coexistence
with non-Jews. This was my major motive for joining the Zionist
movement... But my Zionism does not preclude cosmopolitan views." His
envisioning of a "free Jewish community in Palestine" was not so much
a demand for a militarist sovereign country as it was about East
European Jews not to be treated as wretched refugees in the racist
European powers. Jewish Diaspora would never have aimed for a separate
land if the Jews were treated humanely in the various European
countries they lived in, Einstein cited early on.
But wary he would always remain of the Zionists at the same time. One
of them was Isaac Don Levine who tried early on to persuade Einstein
against the Bolsheviks by making false claims about how Jews were
being colonized by Stalin's Russia. On April 9, 1926, Einstein
rubbished such claims by Levine and wrote to him that he was
supporting Russia and that the "efforts being made to colonize Jews in
Russia must not be opposed because they aim at assisting thousands of
Jews whom Palestine cannot immediately absorb." Einstein had duly
acknowledged how Stalin was the only international leader to have been
supportive of the Jewish cause, so much so that Soviet Union was the
first country to develop an autonomous territory for the Jewish
people, a concept that Einstein had dreamt to see realised in
Palestine, upon British promise. But reactionary Zionism was
intolerant towards the communists and was refusing to credit the
Soviet Union for their initiatives. As history would prove it later,
and Einstein would attest, the British ended up deceiving the Jews,
while Soviet Union continued to save millions of them.
In the March 1926 letter to Blumenfeld, Einstein wrote, "I appreciate
the educational achievements of Zionism. However, as an enterprise, I
don't know it well enough to support it with good conscience." Even as
Einstein's conscience would continue to haunt him, he was still
optimistic about the forthcoming "Jewish centre" of morality and
intellectualism. He never got the "impression that the Arab problem
might threaten the development of the Palestine project." He said, "I
believe rather that, among the working classes especially, Jew and
Arab on the whole get on excellently together." (1927)
Next year, in 1928, contrary to political wisdom, the British proposed
a parliament for Palestine in a rushed manner that mandated equal
representations from Jewish and Arab (and some British appointees) – a
move that would result in the first major "riots" claiming hundreds of
lives on each side. By the Jewish migrations in 1930, the British
census report would declare almost 17 percent of the population in the
Arab land to be Jews. Mass agitations among the Arabs would be
"tackled" by the British in 1936 when for the first time, the
colonizers would station more troops in Palestine than in the entire
Indian subcontinent. In 1937, the proposed mandate would be declared a
failure because common grounds between the Arabs and Jews would not be
allegedly found and the British conveniently would then "partition"
Palestine, much to the chagrin of the Arabs (and, Einstein).
Before the proposed "Partition" could materialize, Zionist Weizmann
demanded that all Arabs be deported to Jordan, an idea that was
opposed by Einstein and resulted in further differences between the
two of them. Describing Jewish nationalism as guided by militarism and
conservatism, Einstein even compared it with Prussia in a letter to
Weizmann: "Without honest cooperation with the Arabs there is no peace
and no security. This is for the long range politics and not for the
present times. In the last analysis, even if we were not practically
defenseless, it would not be worthy of us to want to maintain a
nationalism a la Prussienne."
It was not any political power that Einstein wanted to see instituted
in the Arab land. Refusing to be deluded by the Zionist propaganda, he
was increasingly becoming concerned about the safety of the Arab
people in Palestine. In a letter to Bernard Lecache in May 1930,
Einstein wrote, "With regard to the question of Palestine, my most
eager wish would be that, by policies preserving the legitimate
interests of the Arabs, the Jews might succeed in proving that the
Jewish people has managed to learn something from its own past, long
ordeal."
Although immigration of Jewish people to the Arab land was becoming
legally inevitable, Einstein proposed there should be a limit to that.
In a letter to Edward Freed, he wrote in 1932, "I am not a nationalist
and I do not wish any discrimination of the Arabs in Palestine. The
Jewish immigration to Palestine in the framework of 'suitable limits'
can't do harm to anyone." The 'limits' were opposed by many Zionists
of the time, principally by the anticommunist and Jewish nationalist
Ze'ev Jabotinsky. Einstein attacked them as Fascists and in a letter
to the Zionist Beinish Epstein, he accused them of "borrowing from the
Fascists... methods that I abhor deeply, and use them to serve the
interests of those who, relying on their ownership of the means of
production, disfranchise and exploit the nonowners." (1935)
These sentiments are more relevant today as the Gaza wars continue to
oppress the Arabs in the name of defending the state of Israel. Back
then, Einstein had warned the Jewish people not to fall into the trap
of nationalism, and the following excerpt of his commentary sums it
up: "The essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish
state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power… I am
afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain – especially from the
development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against
which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish
state. A return to a nation in the political sense of the word would
be equivalent to turning away from the spiritualization of our
community..."
However, Einstein's plan was not laying the foundation for the future;
British colonialism's declarations were. As the Second World War
unfolded, between 1939 and 1944, the British allowed for a limited
number (75,000) of Jews to be settled in Palestine. In the meantime,
Nazi Germany's onslaughts made possible somewhat of a unity among the
Arabs and Jews - Palestinian Communist Party (which supported the
Soviet Union) as well as Jewish Communists and left-leaning Zionists
Hashomer Hatzair worked towards forging alliances between antifascists
from each side. At the same time, to counter the influence of the
communists, the rightwing Zionists also grew in leaps and bounds (some
of them assassinated Lord Moyne, British Minister of State in 1944).
Next year, they demanded immediate admission of 100,000 Jewish
refugees to Eretz Israel, Einstein sharply attacked these Jewish
militants and said "I regard them as a disaster. I'm not willing to
see anybody associated with those misled and criminal people", in an
interview with I.Z. David.
Anti-Israel: "The war is won, but the peace is not." (Einstein, 1945)
While he rejoiced the defeat of Hitler and Nazism, Einstein continued
to oppose the idea of a Jewish state. In January 1946, testifying
before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine (AACIP),
Einstein argued against the idea of Israel. He wrote to Rabbi Wise,
"I'm firmly convinced that a rigid demand for a 'Jewish State' will
have only undesirable results for us." American radical journalist I.
F. Stone, himself a fellow 'cultural Zionist' declared his support for
Einstein saying that "to have the greatest Jewish figure of the period
oppose a Jewish state as unfair to the Arabs is a very noble thing."
Einstein attacked the British as the root cause of the instabilities
in the lives of Arabs and Jews. "Difficulties between the Jews and
Arabs are artificially created, and are created by the English," he
thundered. Einstein noted that Palestine could still rule with one
government, but without British intervention, because in his
impression, "Palestine is a kind of small model of India. There is an
attempt, with the help of a few officials, to dominate the people of
Palestine and it seems to me that the English rule it." Attacking the
British colonial rule as one that exploits the native while
collaborating with landowners, Einstein laid bare a vicious critique
of Western interests in the proposed partitions."
In 1952, when Weizmann died and to fill that vacuum a great name was
sought to become President of Israel, Ben Gurion unashamedly
approached Einstein. Not only did Einstein refuse to accept that
position, he also stated it would be "a difficult situation that would
create a conflict with my conscience." Although Gurion's offer is a
well-known historical episode, Einstein's response is rarely mentioned
because that would then brand the most honored Jewish person as the
biggest anti-Semite in the political terms employed today.
Likewise, a day after Einstein's death, the New York Times, on April
19, 1955 deliberately misconstrued history in its characteristic style
by printing, "Israel, whose establishment as a state, Einstein had
championed..." As Einstein's chronicler Fred Jerome noted, it was "a
description of Einstein the media had never used while he was alive."
However, the conspiracies to cleanse Einstein of his "dirty past" had
started long ago with FBI employing anti-Stalinist agents to discredit
him, while suppressing such facts from the public knowledge. Thanks to
Jerome's investigations ("The Einstein File"), it is now revealed that
Louis Gibarti, who was expelled from the Communist Party by Stalin,
soon became an informant for the FBI (interviewed by Democratic Party
Senator Pat McCarran). McCarran, submitted the reports of allegations
against Einstein's international communist contacts, and his
Republican counterpart Senator McCarthy ended up denouncing Einstein
as an "enemy of America".
Einstein's deeply rooted friendship with Paul Robeson and his
unconditional support for W.E.B. DuBois were also deliberately kept
under wraps for decades - despite them possibly being the biggest
influences in Einstein's radical saga. Just as the facts - that he was
the fiercest critic of British colonialism, a profoundly radical voice
against American imperialism, a strong advocate for Stalin's Russia, a
steadfast supporter of the black communists, and a studied commentator
against the reactionary Zionism upon which Israel has been founded -
have been carefully concealed. For if the real Einstein were to
inspire the world today, that would not just disturb the comfortable
imperialists, more importantly, it would awaken and radicalize all the
oppressed people of the world to stand up against injustice, as
Einstein, not the marketable genius - but the collective conscience
for a progressive world, once did.
The Magazine
Politics & Society
Science & Technology
Environment
Sports
Arts & Culture
Workshop & Events
Workshops
Events
Discussions
Screenings
Others
About Us
Manifesto
The Team
Columnists
Bloggers
Artists
Blogs Subscribe Advertise Contact Us Columns Audio | Video
Developed and Maintained By : Webfly Software
Share:
0
--
Saurav Datta
Twitter: SauravDatta29
Mobile : +91-9930966518
"To those who believe in resistance, who live between hope and
impatience and have learned the perils of being unreasonable. To those
who understand enough to be afraid and yet retain their fury."
Sent from my Amazon Kindle Fire
Friday, November 30, 2012
[LST] Cashing in on schemes for poor - The Hindu: Mobile Edition
http://m.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/cashing-in-on-schemes-for-poor/article4143870.ece/?maneref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.in%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dcash%2520transfers%2520the%2520hindu%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D14%26ved%3D0CEEQFjADOAo%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.thehindu.com%252Fopinion%252Flead%252Fcashing-in-on-schemes-for-poor%252Farticle4143870.ece%26ei%3Dbqm5UK2mHcqxrAfuyYDwBA%26usg%3DAFQjCNFBbRV2i-0KznqR4zWSG1O464EuUw%26sig2%3DVWIgJoWLsoXXFCJSpZaCeQ
Home Sections
Cashing in on schemes for poor
28 November 2012 , By Narendar Pani
Any political benefit the Congress hopes to reap in 2014 will come at
the cost of reducing the effectiveness of social welfare schemes
In getting its ministers to endorse the shift to cash transfers from
the AICC office in New Delhi, the Congress has highlighted the
political nature of the move. The party clearly expects cash transfers
to play the same role for it in 2014 that the National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act did in 2009. By pouring money directly into
the bank accounts of voters across the country, it expects to be paid
back with additional seats in the Lok Sabha. But the politics of cash
transfers is not the same as that of the MGNREGA. And even if there is
political gain for the Congress from this move, it will come at a
great social cost.
Then and now
The fundamental difference between the political economy of the NREGA
in 2009 and the cash transfers today is in the impact on inflation.
The NREGA was launched at a time when the macroeconomic goal was to
provide an impetus to the Indian economy at a time of a global
slowdown. The impetus took the form of raising the fiscal deficit
substantially, thereby providing the resources for the NREGA. Since
the economy needed the additional expenditure there was only a limited
immediate impact on inflation.
This is not the macroeconomic situation today. With inflationary
pressures remaining a concern there is need to be wary of any massive
transfer of cash to voters. The politicians in the Congress possibly
believe they have got this covered since they are simply changing the
way of delivering existing subsidies. As there is no additional
expenditure involved, they seem convinced there will be no
inflationary pressure from the move.
The economist in the Prime Minister must however know otherwise. He
will be sensitive to what economists call the multiplier effect.
Simply put, when cash is paid out to an individual she saves some of
it and spends the rest. What she spends becomes income to someone
else. The next person again saves some of this income and spends the
rest, thereby creating income for a third person, and so on. The
overall effect of putting cash into the economy is then several times
greater than the original infusion, the exact multiple depending on
the proportion of income that is spent.
In the case of a transfer of welfare in kind, there is little scope
for this multiplier to take effect. When a beneficiary receives food
from a ration shop her family consumes the food without creating
additional income for anyone else. The multiplier comes into play when
the supply of subsidised food from the ration shop is replaced by
cash. And if the government were to try to control the inflationary
pressures by curbing money supply it runs the risk of going to the
next elections with the economy slowing down. It is therefore no
surprise that the food subsidy and the fertilizer subsidy have been
kept out of the initial shift to cash transfers.
The 29 schemes that are to form the initial round of cash transfer
from January 1, 2013 focus primarily on reworking cash based welfare
schemes such as pensions and student loans. The apparent political
potential of this move, in the current system of patronage politics,
explains the glee in the AICC office when the shift to cash transfers
was endorsed. The entire transfer of the cash value of welfare schemes
will now be seen as coming from the Congress. The old process, in
which a local politician was the link between a scheme and its
beneficiaries, thus earning loyalty and building constituency, will no
longer be valid. This would not only hurt opposition parties but would
also weaken the grass root Congress worker, while strengthening the
party high command.
The social costs of this move are however quite evident when we
consider the precise mechanism through which the shift to cash
transfers is to take place. The beneficiaries are to be identified
using the unique identification of Aadhar. There may be those who
challenge the claims to perfection of the Aadhar process, but that
view is unlikely to overcome the widespread Indian belief that what is
technologically done must be perfect. Even if we grant Aadhar
perfection, though, we must keep in mind that it is only a system of
unique identification, nothing more. All that it does is to ensure
that once a person says she is X, she cannot later say she is Y.
Such a unique identification does not even guarantee that the person
is in fact an Indian. It is quite possible for a person from, say
Bangladesh, to cross our porous borders, go up to an Aadhar office and
get a card. Aadhar does not believe it is its business to guarantee
the nationality of the individual. With a convenient Indian address
she could then be eligible for direct cash transfers. This can make a
significant difference to the working of cash transfers in some
regions where borders are porous.
Overreliance on Aadhar
Moving away from the northeast there is an even greater challenge in
an overreliance on Aadhar. The proof that the person has once
identified herself as X tells us nothing about whether X is, in fact,
poor or eligible for the subsidy. The problem with ration cards today
is twofold: there are multiple cards issued to the same households,
and the Below Poverty Line cards have been issued to those who are not
poor. Aadhar could help solve the first problem, but not the second.
Even with Aadhar based identification, the non-poor can be classified
as poor.
What should cause greater concern is that there is little attention
being paid to the transaction costs of the poor and illiterate
accessing the bank accounts. In a study of the working of the Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in Karnataka, it was
found that the poor did not always get their full wages. In the more
backward districts of the State, there was a significant difference
between the wages paid out according to the MGNREGA records and the
wages the workers said they received. And it is not difficult to
imagine how this could happen. The poor, especially if they are
illiterate, are dependent on bank officials to tell them whether the
money has been credited into their accounts. And if they seek the help
of others in the village that too can come at an economic, if not
social, cost.
Even in cases where the money reaches the right bank account and the
right person, there could still be leakages in terms of how that money
is spent. In some schemes this would not matter. A pension has served
its stated purpose the moment it reaches the beneficiary. But there
are other schemes such as student loans where a mechanism is still
needed to ensure that the money that is transferred to the bank
account is actually spent on education. When the cash transfer is from
a distant source and the expenditure to be made is local, monitoring
how the money is spent is no easy task. And if the money is not used
for the stated purpose, it is a leakage of another kind.
The experience of MGNREGA tells us that preventing this leakage could
cause greater pain to the beneficiaries. In some States by the time
the work done is measured and the payments are released, the workers
could end up waiting for months to be paid. In the case of cash
transfers too while the actual transfer of funds into bank accounts
may be instantaneous, the process of ensuring the money is spent on
the stated purpose could cause either leakages or substantial delays.
It is here that the gap between the political interests of the
Congress and the social interests of the country is the widest. If the
cash transfers are to be politically viable the government must
transfer the subsidies on time. And it would be in the Congress
party's interest for the cash to be transferred without worrying too
much about whether it is being spent on the stated purpose. If its
record is any guide, it would not mind transferring cash for a student
loan even if the money is spent on a school or college that is
unworthy of that expenditure.
Faced with a choice between a possible political benefit in 2014, and
a further reduction in the effectiveness of the social welfare
schemes, the Congress has made its choice public. And in a country
where we celebrate our economic growth even as over 40 per cent of our
children remain malnourished, it is a choice that is unlikely to cause
much consternation.
(The author is Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore)
Share this story
Related articles
Direct cash transfer of subsidies through Aadhaar from January 1
Aadhaar: on a platform of myths
Cash transfer scheme is a game-changer: Chidambaram
Related topics
social issue, welfare, social issues (general), social services
Home Sections
A- A+
The Hindu, 2011
Mobile website powered by MobStac
--
Saurav Datta
Twitter: SauravDatta29
Mobile : +91-9930966518
"To those who believe in resistance, who live between hope and
impatience and have learned the perils of being unreasonable. To those
who understand enough to be afraid and yet retain their fury."
Sent from my Amazon Kindle Fire
Home Sections
Cashing in on schemes for poor
28 November 2012 , By Narendar Pani
Any political benefit the Congress hopes to reap in 2014 will come at
the cost of reducing the effectiveness of social welfare schemes
In getting its ministers to endorse the shift to cash transfers from
the AICC office in New Delhi, the Congress has highlighted the
political nature of the move. The party clearly expects cash transfers
to play the same role for it in 2014 that the National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act did in 2009. By pouring money directly into
the bank accounts of voters across the country, it expects to be paid
back with additional seats in the Lok Sabha. But the politics of cash
transfers is not the same as that of the MGNREGA. And even if there is
political gain for the Congress from this move, it will come at a
great social cost.
Then and now
The fundamental difference between the political economy of the NREGA
in 2009 and the cash transfers today is in the impact on inflation.
The NREGA was launched at a time when the macroeconomic goal was to
provide an impetus to the Indian economy at a time of a global
slowdown. The impetus took the form of raising the fiscal deficit
substantially, thereby providing the resources for the NREGA. Since
the economy needed the additional expenditure there was only a limited
immediate impact on inflation.
This is not the macroeconomic situation today. With inflationary
pressures remaining a concern there is need to be wary of any massive
transfer of cash to voters. The politicians in the Congress possibly
believe they have got this covered since they are simply changing the
way of delivering existing subsidies. As there is no additional
expenditure involved, they seem convinced there will be no
inflationary pressure from the move.
The economist in the Prime Minister must however know otherwise. He
will be sensitive to what economists call the multiplier effect.
Simply put, when cash is paid out to an individual she saves some of
it and spends the rest. What she spends becomes income to someone
else. The next person again saves some of this income and spends the
rest, thereby creating income for a third person, and so on. The
overall effect of putting cash into the economy is then several times
greater than the original infusion, the exact multiple depending on
the proportion of income that is spent.
In the case of a transfer of welfare in kind, there is little scope
for this multiplier to take effect. When a beneficiary receives food
from a ration shop her family consumes the food without creating
additional income for anyone else. The multiplier comes into play when
the supply of subsidised food from the ration shop is replaced by
cash. And if the government were to try to control the inflationary
pressures by curbing money supply it runs the risk of going to the
next elections with the economy slowing down. It is therefore no
surprise that the food subsidy and the fertilizer subsidy have been
kept out of the initial shift to cash transfers.
The 29 schemes that are to form the initial round of cash transfer
from January 1, 2013 focus primarily on reworking cash based welfare
schemes such as pensions and student loans. The apparent political
potential of this move, in the current system of patronage politics,
explains the glee in the AICC office when the shift to cash transfers
was endorsed. The entire transfer of the cash value of welfare schemes
will now be seen as coming from the Congress. The old process, in
which a local politician was the link between a scheme and its
beneficiaries, thus earning loyalty and building constituency, will no
longer be valid. This would not only hurt opposition parties but would
also weaken the grass root Congress worker, while strengthening the
party high command.
The social costs of this move are however quite evident when we
consider the precise mechanism through which the shift to cash
transfers is to take place. The beneficiaries are to be identified
using the unique identification of Aadhar. There may be those who
challenge the claims to perfection of the Aadhar process, but that
view is unlikely to overcome the widespread Indian belief that what is
technologically done must be perfect. Even if we grant Aadhar
perfection, though, we must keep in mind that it is only a system of
unique identification, nothing more. All that it does is to ensure
that once a person says she is X, she cannot later say she is Y.
Such a unique identification does not even guarantee that the person
is in fact an Indian. It is quite possible for a person from, say
Bangladesh, to cross our porous borders, go up to an Aadhar office and
get a card. Aadhar does not believe it is its business to guarantee
the nationality of the individual. With a convenient Indian address
she could then be eligible for direct cash transfers. This can make a
significant difference to the working of cash transfers in some
regions where borders are porous.
Overreliance on Aadhar
Moving away from the northeast there is an even greater challenge in
an overreliance on Aadhar. The proof that the person has once
identified herself as X tells us nothing about whether X is, in fact,
poor or eligible for the subsidy. The problem with ration cards today
is twofold: there are multiple cards issued to the same households,
and the Below Poverty Line cards have been issued to those who are not
poor. Aadhar could help solve the first problem, but not the second.
Even with Aadhar based identification, the non-poor can be classified
as poor.
What should cause greater concern is that there is little attention
being paid to the transaction costs of the poor and illiterate
accessing the bank accounts. In a study of the working of the Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in Karnataka, it was
found that the poor did not always get their full wages. In the more
backward districts of the State, there was a significant difference
between the wages paid out according to the MGNREGA records and the
wages the workers said they received. And it is not difficult to
imagine how this could happen. The poor, especially if they are
illiterate, are dependent on bank officials to tell them whether the
money has been credited into their accounts. And if they seek the help
of others in the village that too can come at an economic, if not
social, cost.
Even in cases where the money reaches the right bank account and the
right person, there could still be leakages in terms of how that money
is spent. In some schemes this would not matter. A pension has served
its stated purpose the moment it reaches the beneficiary. But there
are other schemes such as student loans where a mechanism is still
needed to ensure that the money that is transferred to the bank
account is actually spent on education. When the cash transfer is from
a distant source and the expenditure to be made is local, monitoring
how the money is spent is no easy task. And if the money is not used
for the stated purpose, it is a leakage of another kind.
The experience of MGNREGA tells us that preventing this leakage could
cause greater pain to the beneficiaries. In some States by the time
the work done is measured and the payments are released, the workers
could end up waiting for months to be paid. In the case of cash
transfers too while the actual transfer of funds into bank accounts
may be instantaneous, the process of ensuring the money is spent on
the stated purpose could cause either leakages or substantial delays.
It is here that the gap between the political interests of the
Congress and the social interests of the country is the widest. If the
cash transfers are to be politically viable the government must
transfer the subsidies on time. And it would be in the Congress
party's interest for the cash to be transferred without worrying too
much about whether it is being spent on the stated purpose. If its
record is any guide, it would not mind transferring cash for a student
loan even if the money is spent on a school or college that is
unworthy of that expenditure.
Faced with a choice between a possible political benefit in 2014, and
a further reduction in the effectiveness of the social welfare
schemes, the Congress has made its choice public. And in a country
where we celebrate our economic growth even as over 40 per cent of our
children remain malnourished, it is a choice that is unlikely to cause
much consternation.
(The author is Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore)
Share this story
Related articles
Direct cash transfer of subsidies through Aadhaar from January 1
Aadhaar: on a platform of myths
Cash transfer scheme is a game-changer: Chidambaram
Related topics
social issue, welfare, social issues (general), social services
Home Sections
A- A+
The Hindu, 2011
Mobile website powered by MobStac
--
Saurav Datta
Twitter: SauravDatta29
Mobile : +91-9930966518
"To those who believe in resistance, who live between hope and
impatience and have learned the perils of being unreasonable. To those
who understand enough to be afraid and yet retain their fury."
Sent from my Amazon Kindle Fire
[LST] #Cash transfer- Cash is no cure-all - Indian Express Mobile
http://m.indianexpress.com/news/%22cash-is-no-cureall%22/1036631/
News Astro Photos More
Op-Ed News
Cash is no cure-all
Lant Pritchett , Shrayana Bhattacharya
Cash transfers seem to be the latest fad. With elections looming, the
Prime Minister's National Committee on Direct Cash Transfers has been
tasked with an ambitious mandate to provide vision and direction to
enable direct cash transfers of subsidies under various government
schemes and programmes to individuals to enhance efficiency. Certain
activists warn against an ill-considered and hasty transition from
food to cash. Others believe directly transferring the subsidy amount
to citizens can offer beneficiaries more choice and allow the state to
sidestep poor supply side management practices plaguing the public
distribution of goods and services that result in leakage. Cash
transfers have increasingly become synonymous with ideological
contestation on the role of the state, making the debate on
feasibility shriller.
Like most medicine, cash transfers are a cure, but not a cure-all. It
helps to clarify which maladies can be solved by cash transfers, which
cannot — and identify those cases where the side effects of
introducing cash could be worse than the disease.
Over the years, studies of the PDS show that some states manage supply
of in-kind transfers fairly well, while in a large number of cases,
the pipeline connecting citizens to ration supplies is prone to
leakage and corruption. Money at the top, spent by state treasuries
for the distribution system, produces little food or fuel for PDS
beneficiaries at the bottom. Such findings, in combination with fiscal
stress, have bolstered the characterisation of the current delivery of
in-kind transfers as inefficient. However, we need to consider three
key issues when thinking of
using cash transfers as an antidote to inefficiencies within the
public distribution channel.
First, if the only inefficiency within any public distribution system
was that the costs of moving materials and getting the public sector
to produce or procure goods and services were much higher relative to
the overall gain, transparent and direct cash transfers would be a
complete and comprehensive solution. The development of technologies
such as biometrics and centralised fund-flow management systems have
created new pipelines through which cash can flow cheaply and
accurately to recipients.
Second, the efficiency of cash transfers has to be measured against
larger programme goals. For decades, economists have shown that the
direct delivery of money is more efficient than the transfer of
physical materials, if our sole purpose is to transfer purchasing
power. However, if programmes are not just intended to transfer the
ability to purchase, then moving to a system of cash transfers is not
efficient if the status quo of other objectives, such as nutrition or
disease prevention, remains unchanged. For example, in a Honduran
maternal and child health programme, it cost 1.03 lempiras to deliver
1 lempira of an income transfer in the form of a cash-like coupon,
while it cost 5.69 lempiras to deliver the same income transfer in the
form of food. However, the pure cash transfer had no effect on either
children's calorie consumption or on the use of the health centres,
while the food transfer increased both. Also, in Kenya, giving cash
alone did not result in consumers buying bednets that prevented
malaria. Much of the new behavioural economics is about using "nudges"
to promote programme objectives. But such nudges need not be cash
alone. In Rajasthan, experimental evidence shows how providing small
food transfers such as lentils can improve the coverage of
immunisation amongst resource poor families.
Part of the government's objective of moving commodities in PDS, for
instance, is to stabilise and "thicken" food and fuel markets so that
consumers, and not just beneficiaries, are protected against price
fluctuations and uncompetitive markets with few suppliers. While it
may be the case that PDS doesn't do this particularly well or that
this purpose is no longer needed in parts of the country,
market-making and regulation is a public purpose that needs to figure
into the "efficiency" discussion.
That said, even moving money is not so easy in India. A financial
inclusion survey conducted by a World Bank team found that only 35 per
cent of Indians had accounts in formal financial institutions. This
number dwindles to 21 per cent amongst the poorest quintile. These
estimates are lower than the 50 per cent global average and the 41 per
cent in developing countries. Recent assessments on social pensions —
an existing cash transfer — highlight that opening bank accounts is
tough for the poorest without policy and administrative support, even
in urban areas such as the state of Delhi. The experience with rural
social pensions shows that even cash transfers require fairly
sophisticated financial delivery mechanisms, accounting and
implementation capability, which is often lacking. Because the
temptation to loot cash may be the same or greater, directing and
tracking payments to individual beneficiaries require doing simple
things such as digitising programme records. Doing such simple things
has so far proved difficult in high profile cash-for-work schemes such
as NREGS. The government's own data indicates that a handful of
states, such as Karnataka, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Orissa and
Gujarat, have fully electronically updated the muster roll for
workers. It is worth remembering that Mexico and Brazil, where
conditional cash transfers famously replaced pre-existing in-kind
transfers, are richer economies with greater administrative
capability.
Finally, in a world with budgetary constraints that require capping
the number of benefit recipients, moving from in-kind to cash
transfers doesn't help with other administrative inefficiencies in
beneficiary identification and implementation of the eligibility
determination protocols. If the problem is that people who are
eligible find it hard to procure paperwork to prove their citizenship
and poverty to make claims on state resources, while those who are
ineligible nevertheless manage to get benefits, it is hard to see how
moving to cash helps. In cash-for-work schemes, a work requirement is
costly to implement (as money has to be spent on inputs and works) but
in spite of this, it can be efficient if it induces self-selection
targeting, whereby only those truly in need show up. Evidence from
many locales, like the Indonesian programme during the financial
crisis, shows that a work requirement does identify those who have had
negative shocks better than any eligibility scheme.
The difficulty with cash-for-eligibility schemes is that everyone
would like to be eligible (present company not excluded). If universal
transfers are deemed too expensive, one way the move to targeted cash
transfers through banking networks could help the eligibility
determination process would be if fund flows, assets and financial
activities of citizens applying for schemes could be traced to allow
state governments to credibly distinguish between the rich and poor.
However, this requires the effective implementation of parallel policy
reforms to tackle state surveillance and increase incentives for all
citizens to report and hold assets in financial institutions.
Cash transfers are terrific at what cash transfers are terrific at — a
pure and direct transfer of purchasing power. If the goal of
transferring resources to citizens is simply to attain a socially
desirable distribution of money and ability to buy things, cash works
very well. However, if the idea is to tackle market failures and
attain a socially desirable form of behaviour, where administrators
allocate benefits to the poorest and the poorest are able to use the
subsidy amounts for good nutrition and health outcomes, the idea of
cash as a cure-all is problematic. Much of the current discussion on
cash transfers is focused on what the state ought to do, without
enough consideration of what the Indian state is capable of doing.
Proponents of a cash-based approach assume the state has better
ability to supply cash than the supply of physical goods. However,
cash transfers leave many of the hard problems in implementing social
programmes in India just as hard, if not harder.
Bhattacharya is a researcher with Accountability Initiative, Delhi.
Pritchett is professor of the practice of international development at
Harvard Kennedy School (on leave), US
Share this story:
More Sections
Home Business Technology Photos
India Sports Editorial Videos
City Showbiz Op-Ed Full Coverage
World Lifestyle Columns Astro
Weather
© 2012 The Indian Express Limited. All rights reserved.
--
Saurav Datta
Twitter: SauravDatta29
Mobile : +91-9930966518
"To those who believe in resistance, who live between hope and
impatience and have learned the perils of being unreasonable. To those
who understand enough to be afraid and yet retain their fury."
Sent from my Amazon Kindle Fire
News Astro Photos More
Op-Ed News
Cash is no cure-all
Lant Pritchett , Shrayana Bhattacharya
Cash transfers seem to be the latest fad. With elections looming, the
Prime Minister's National Committee on Direct Cash Transfers has been
tasked with an ambitious mandate to provide vision and direction to
enable direct cash transfers of subsidies under various government
schemes and programmes to individuals to enhance efficiency. Certain
activists warn against an ill-considered and hasty transition from
food to cash. Others believe directly transferring the subsidy amount
to citizens can offer beneficiaries more choice and allow the state to
sidestep poor supply side management practices plaguing the public
distribution of goods and services that result in leakage. Cash
transfers have increasingly become synonymous with ideological
contestation on the role of the state, making the debate on
feasibility shriller.
Like most medicine, cash transfers are a cure, but not a cure-all. It
helps to clarify which maladies can be solved by cash transfers, which
cannot — and identify those cases where the side effects of
introducing cash could be worse than the disease.
Over the years, studies of the PDS show that some states manage supply
of in-kind transfers fairly well, while in a large number of cases,
the pipeline connecting citizens to ration supplies is prone to
leakage and corruption. Money at the top, spent by state treasuries
for the distribution system, produces little food or fuel for PDS
beneficiaries at the bottom. Such findings, in combination with fiscal
stress, have bolstered the characterisation of the current delivery of
in-kind transfers as inefficient. However, we need to consider three
key issues when thinking of
using cash transfers as an antidote to inefficiencies within the
public distribution channel.
First, if the only inefficiency within any public distribution system
was that the costs of moving materials and getting the public sector
to produce or procure goods and services were much higher relative to
the overall gain, transparent and direct cash transfers would be a
complete and comprehensive solution. The development of technologies
such as biometrics and centralised fund-flow management systems have
created new pipelines through which cash can flow cheaply and
accurately to recipients.
Second, the efficiency of cash transfers has to be measured against
larger programme goals. For decades, economists have shown that the
direct delivery of money is more efficient than the transfer of
physical materials, if our sole purpose is to transfer purchasing
power. However, if programmes are not just intended to transfer the
ability to purchase, then moving to a system of cash transfers is not
efficient if the status quo of other objectives, such as nutrition or
disease prevention, remains unchanged. For example, in a Honduran
maternal and child health programme, it cost 1.03 lempiras to deliver
1 lempira of an income transfer in the form of a cash-like coupon,
while it cost 5.69 lempiras to deliver the same income transfer in the
form of food. However, the pure cash transfer had no effect on either
children's calorie consumption or on the use of the health centres,
while the food transfer increased both. Also, in Kenya, giving cash
alone did not result in consumers buying bednets that prevented
malaria. Much of the new behavioural economics is about using "nudges"
to promote programme objectives. But such nudges need not be cash
alone. In Rajasthan, experimental evidence shows how providing small
food transfers such as lentils can improve the coverage of
immunisation amongst resource poor families.
Part of the government's objective of moving commodities in PDS, for
instance, is to stabilise and "thicken" food and fuel markets so that
consumers, and not just beneficiaries, are protected against price
fluctuations and uncompetitive markets with few suppliers. While it
may be the case that PDS doesn't do this particularly well or that
this purpose is no longer needed in parts of the country,
market-making and regulation is a public purpose that needs to figure
into the "efficiency" discussion.
That said, even moving money is not so easy in India. A financial
inclusion survey conducted by a World Bank team found that only 35 per
cent of Indians had accounts in formal financial institutions. This
number dwindles to 21 per cent amongst the poorest quintile. These
estimates are lower than the 50 per cent global average and the 41 per
cent in developing countries. Recent assessments on social pensions —
an existing cash transfer — highlight that opening bank accounts is
tough for the poorest without policy and administrative support, even
in urban areas such as the state of Delhi. The experience with rural
social pensions shows that even cash transfers require fairly
sophisticated financial delivery mechanisms, accounting and
implementation capability, which is often lacking. Because the
temptation to loot cash may be the same or greater, directing and
tracking payments to individual beneficiaries require doing simple
things such as digitising programme records. Doing such simple things
has so far proved difficult in high profile cash-for-work schemes such
as NREGS. The government's own data indicates that a handful of
states, such as Karnataka, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Orissa and
Gujarat, have fully electronically updated the muster roll for
workers. It is worth remembering that Mexico and Brazil, where
conditional cash transfers famously replaced pre-existing in-kind
transfers, are richer economies with greater administrative
capability.
Finally, in a world with budgetary constraints that require capping
the number of benefit recipients, moving from in-kind to cash
transfers doesn't help with other administrative inefficiencies in
beneficiary identification and implementation of the eligibility
determination protocols. If the problem is that people who are
eligible find it hard to procure paperwork to prove their citizenship
and poverty to make claims on state resources, while those who are
ineligible nevertheless manage to get benefits, it is hard to see how
moving to cash helps. In cash-for-work schemes, a work requirement is
costly to implement (as money has to be spent on inputs and works) but
in spite of this, it can be efficient if it induces self-selection
targeting, whereby only those truly in need show up. Evidence from
many locales, like the Indonesian programme during the financial
crisis, shows that a work requirement does identify those who have had
negative shocks better than any eligibility scheme.
The difficulty with cash-for-eligibility schemes is that everyone
would like to be eligible (present company not excluded). If universal
transfers are deemed too expensive, one way the move to targeted cash
transfers through banking networks could help the eligibility
determination process would be if fund flows, assets and financial
activities of citizens applying for schemes could be traced to allow
state governments to credibly distinguish between the rich and poor.
However, this requires the effective implementation of parallel policy
reforms to tackle state surveillance and increase incentives for all
citizens to report and hold assets in financial institutions.
Cash transfers are terrific at what cash transfers are terrific at — a
pure and direct transfer of purchasing power. If the goal of
transferring resources to citizens is simply to attain a socially
desirable distribution of money and ability to buy things, cash works
very well. However, if the idea is to tackle market failures and
attain a socially desirable form of behaviour, where administrators
allocate benefits to the poorest and the poorest are able to use the
subsidy amounts for good nutrition and health outcomes, the idea of
cash as a cure-all is problematic. Much of the current discussion on
cash transfers is focused on what the state ought to do, without
enough consideration of what the Indian state is capable of doing.
Proponents of a cash-based approach assume the state has better
ability to supply cash than the supply of physical goods. However,
cash transfers leave many of the hard problems in implementing social
programmes in India just as hard, if not harder.
Bhattacharya is a researcher with Accountability Initiative, Delhi.
Pritchett is professor of the practice of international development at
Harvard Kennedy School (on leave), US
Share this story:
More Sections
Home Business Technology Photos
India Sports Editorial Videos
City Showbiz Op-Ed Full Coverage
World Lifestyle Columns Astro
Weather
© 2012 The Indian Express Limited. All rights reserved.
--
Saurav Datta
Twitter: SauravDatta29
Mobile : +91-9930966518
"To those who believe in resistance, who live between hope and
impatience and have learned the perils of being unreasonable. To those
who understand enough to be afraid and yet retain their fury."
Sent from my Amazon Kindle Fire
[LST] SC issues tough guidelines to curb eve-teasing - Indian Express Mobile
http://m.indianexpress.com/news/sc-issues-tough-guidelines-to-curb-eveteasing/1038867/
SC issues tough guidelines to curb eve-teasing
A view of the Supreme Court building is seen in New Delhi.
Reuters
Utkarsh Anand
Citing the absence of a uniform law in the country to deal
with the "horrid and disgusting" crime of eve-teasing, the
Supreme Court Friday issued a slew of directives to all state
governments and union territories to protect women from
such a "painful ordeal".
A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra,
while referring to a similar move by the court to tackle
sexual harassment at work places, said that it had become
urgent for it to interfere in public interest and pass
directions to curb the menace.
The apex court directed all states and union territories to
establish within three months women's helplines in cities
and towns to curb harassment. It also said women police
officers in plain clothes should be deployed near public
places such as bus and train stations, cinema halls, shopping
malls and parks, among others.
The court ordered installation of CCTV cameras in all such
public places, which it underlined, would not only help in
nabbing offenders but also act as a deterrent.
The bench also said that permits of public carriers would be
cancelled if the driver or anyone else in-charge of the
vehicle fails to take it to the nearest police station on
receiving a complaint about harassment.
"Responsibility is also on the passers-by and on noticing such
incident, they should also report the same to the nearest
police station or to women's helpline to save the victims
from such crimes," it added.
The bench asked people in-charge of places such as
educational institutions, places of worship and cinema halls
to inform the nearest police station or the women's help
centre on receiving a harassment complaint. Suitable
signages cautioning against the crime should also be
exhibited in all public places.
"The state governments and union territories of India would
take adequate and effective measures by issuing suitable
instructions to the concerned authorities including the
district collectors and the district superintendent of police so
as to take effective and proper measures to curb such
incidents of eve-teasing," said the bench.
The court's directions came while hearing an appeal by the
Tamil Nadu police department against an order to re-instate
a police officer, who had been dismissed after being found
guilty of harassing a woman. The high court had passed the
order after the officer had been acquitted by a criminal
court.
The apex court reversed the HC's order saying disciplinary
proceedings had rightly held the officer guilty and that he
was acquitted by the criminal court not because he was
proven innocent but because the witnesses, including the
woman complainant, turned hostile.
"Eve-teasing today has become pernicious, horrid and
disgusting practice. More and more girl students, women go
to educational institutions, work places etc. and their
protection is of extreme importance to a civilised and
cultured society. The experiences of women and girl children
in over-crowded buses, metros, trains etc. are horrendous
and a painful ordeal," the bench said.
"We notice that there is no uniform law in this country to
curb eve-teasing effectively. Consequences of not curbing
such a menace, needless to say, are at times disastrous.
There are many instances where girls of young age are being
harassed, which sometimes may lead to serious
psychological problems and even committing suicide," the
bench said, adding the crime violated fundamental rights of
women.
It said directives from the SC were also required since the
proposed Protection of Woman against Sexual Harassment at
Workplace Bill, 2010, which is intended to protect female
workers in workplaces, was "not sufficient to curb eve-
teasing." Moreover, of all the states, only Tamil Nadu had
come up with a legislation against harassment after the
crime led to the death of a woman in 1998, it said.
RE: Leaked phone calls
Lynn,
I think that the fallacy of both Keynesian Economics and Socialism as
viable economic models for success has been pretty well established. I don't
care what you want to call the encroaching economic morass, I've never
adopted the fiscal cliff term, but was sequestration will do is spell
economic doom for our economy at the same time that our tools of National
Defense are demolished. There are already vets groups planning how we in
the vet community will support our guys and gals left behind logistically
(Damn, someone has to give them the ammo they need to at least survive on
their own). One thing that the groups I'm affiliated with at of now, is how
to somehow give them the resources to conduct a safe redeployment, that
includes last out rear guard protection as well as lift capacity. When it
all goes to Hell it will go fast. Whether you understand or believe that
this is what's going on doesn't matter. You won't end up paying for it but
those whom this President, administration, and legislature turn their backs
on will bear the scars and bury the dead.
I know you've accused me of being alarmist over the dangers facing our
Republic and this danger coming at us like an out of control engine on a
steep grade but neither I nor any of those who are discussing these issues
as they speak and developing contingencies that the Government will not
handle is known to be easily rattled. To recognize a problem and to prepare
for it is only logical. The sky is falling can be left to the lefties when
the balloon goes up and reality pokes them in their complacent asses.
Tom
"Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money,
The Shit has hit the Fan"
"Hiding in Honduras"
- Warren Zevon
-----Original Message-----
From: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
[mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of lynnk05@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:20 PM
To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Leaked phone calls
Tom. I wish you understood there is no such thing as a fiscal cliff. We are
only as weak as fear makes us. If we continue to act in fear the terrorist
factions win. Obama made an opening bid on the budget issues. Now it's on
Boehner. I feel sorry for you that your party just hit on the head with a 2
x 4. I hope you get over the concussion sob.
Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
Tom <boldsaber@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yep, we lost the election and leftists figured we'd feel defeated and
>become docile and that the Emperor would just roll out his sick agenda
>with no problem. Well, didn't happen. Whether you agree with us or
>not, we are fighting a major threat to our country and the total
>decimation of the values on which the nation has stood. You may not
>see it that way, but we do and we're not known to avert our eyes, whip
>our tails down and slink off from the wannabee alpha wolf of
>Totalitarianism. . We're sheepdogs not curs and when faced with wolves
>we bare our teeth and lunge forward to bite the jugular of the nearest
wolf.
>
>Tom
>"Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money,
>The Shit has hit the Fan"
>"Hiding in Honduras"
>- Warren Zevon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>[mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of lynnk05@aol.com
>Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 5:42 PM
>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>Subject: RE: Leaked phone calls
>
>Ya'll missed the election. You lost. We won. Turn off Fox.
>
>Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
>
>Larry Talbot <larry.talbot@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>You can wipe the peanuts off of your nose now Tommy.Jiggly won't mind.
>> From: boldsaber@gmail.com
>>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>>Subject: RE: Leaked phone calls
>>Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:41:05 -0600
>>
>>Well stated and true, JGG. Tom "Send Lawyers, Guns, and
>Money,The Shit has hit the Fan""Hiding in Honduras" - Warren Zevon From:
>opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>[mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com]
>On Behalf Of old fashion liberal
>>Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:27 PM
>>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>>Subject: Re: Leaked phone calls As I suggested, the left will defend
>>Obama
>even as it makes them look silly... Rather like the 30's apologists for
>Stalin and Hitler... The obstructionist here is OBAMA... A divided
>Congress is not a rubber stamp for a very partisan President, nor should
you
>demand it to be just that... This is just the same BS partisanship Obama
>did the last four years...
>>
>>PS The GOP majority in the House lives and dies by their constituents
>>--
>the constituents re-elected a GOP House...
>>
>>On Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:36:18 PM UTC-5, Lynne wrote:Well
>>fancy
>that. The obstructionistas got caught at their own game. The president
>is taking his case to the voters. You remember.We used to be called
>constituents.Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&Told fashion liberal
><jgg...@hotmail.com> wrote:>do not provide for bi-partisan trust... Now
>either the GOP or the WH
>>>leaked the information... I will not be surprised if the Left assumes
>>>Obama did not leak this... Then again I assume Obama lies often to
>>>bludgeon his opponents... As with Libya, the same old same old...
>>>
>>>Obama has lost all remaining trust the GOP had with Obama... My take is
>>>Obama wants a confrontation... Obama does not want to work with the
>GOP...
>>>
>>>http://www.rollcall.com/news/boehner_angered_by_wh_leak-219501-1.html?
>>>pos=hftxt
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>Speaker John A. Boehner <http://www.rollcall.com/members/379.html> of
>>>Ohio and Republican leaders are fuming after a late night phone call
>>>with President Barack Obama was leaked to the press, despite an
>>>agreement that it would not be, according to several GOP aides.
>>>
>>>Republicans believe the administration leaked details of the
>>>30-minute Wednesday night phone call to
>>>Politico<http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/fiscal-cliff-tim-geith
>>>n er-heads-to-capitol-hill-84392.html>,
>>>which is causing them to question whether they can trust the White
>>>House to keep details private, a sentiment that has caused progress
>>>in the negotiations over the "fiscal cliff" to stall.
>>>
>>>White House aides, however, denied that the leak came from the
>>>administration.
>>>
>>>Nevertheless, the leak adds to Republicans' already simmering
>>>tensions with Obama over his decision to travel to Pennsylvania to
>>>take his case for a tax hike on high-income earners to the public.
>>>Republicans believe the president is more interested in raking them
>>>over the coals publicly than striking a deal privately.
>>>
>>>Boehner alluded to as much in a Thursday press briefing.
>>>
>>>"Listen, this is not a game. Jobs are on the line, the American
>>>economy is on the line and this is the moment for adult leadership,"
>>>he
>said.
>>>"Campaign style rallies and one-sided leaks in the press are not the
>>>way to get things done here in Washington."
>>>
>>>He added, "Right now all eyes are on the White House. The country
>>>doesn't need a victory lap, it needs leadership."
>>>
>>>--
>>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDeb...@googlegroups.com To
>>>unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>OpenDebateFor...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group
>>>at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>>---
>>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>>To post to this group, send email to opendeb...@googlegroups.com.
>>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebatefor...@googlegroups.com.
>>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>--
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>For more options, visit this group at
>>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>---
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>
>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>
>>For more options, visit this group at
>>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>
>>---
>>
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>
>>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>
>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>For more options, visit this group at
>>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>---
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com To
unsubscribe from this group, send email to
OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
I think that the fallacy of both Keynesian Economics and Socialism as
viable economic models for success has been pretty well established. I don't
care what you want to call the encroaching economic morass, I've never
adopted the fiscal cliff term, but was sequestration will do is spell
economic doom for our economy at the same time that our tools of National
Defense are demolished. There are already vets groups planning how we in
the vet community will support our guys and gals left behind logistically
(Damn, someone has to give them the ammo they need to at least survive on
their own). One thing that the groups I'm affiliated with at of now, is how
to somehow give them the resources to conduct a safe redeployment, that
includes last out rear guard protection as well as lift capacity. When it
all goes to Hell it will go fast. Whether you understand or believe that
this is what's going on doesn't matter. You won't end up paying for it but
those whom this President, administration, and legislature turn their backs
on will bear the scars and bury the dead.
I know you've accused me of being alarmist over the dangers facing our
Republic and this danger coming at us like an out of control engine on a
steep grade but neither I nor any of those who are discussing these issues
as they speak and developing contingencies that the Government will not
handle is known to be easily rattled. To recognize a problem and to prepare
for it is only logical. The sky is falling can be left to the lefties when
the balloon goes up and reality pokes them in their complacent asses.
Tom
"Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money,
The Shit has hit the Fan"
"Hiding in Honduras"
- Warren Zevon
-----Original Message-----
From: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
[mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of lynnk05@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:20 PM
To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Leaked phone calls
Tom. I wish you understood there is no such thing as a fiscal cliff. We are
only as weak as fear makes us. If we continue to act in fear the terrorist
factions win. Obama made an opening bid on the budget issues. Now it's on
Boehner. I feel sorry for you that your party just hit on the head with a 2
x 4. I hope you get over the concussion sob.
Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
Tom <boldsaber@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yep, we lost the election and leftists figured we'd feel defeated and
>become docile and that the Emperor would just roll out his sick agenda
>with no problem. Well, didn't happen. Whether you agree with us or
>not, we are fighting a major threat to our country and the total
>decimation of the values on which the nation has stood. You may not
>see it that way, but we do and we're not known to avert our eyes, whip
>our tails down and slink off from the wannabee alpha wolf of
>Totalitarianism. . We're sheepdogs not curs and when faced with wolves
>we bare our teeth and lunge forward to bite the jugular of the nearest
wolf.
>
>Tom
>"Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money,
>The Shit has hit the Fan"
>"Hiding in Honduras"
>- Warren Zevon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>[mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of lynnk05@aol.com
>Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 5:42 PM
>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>Subject: RE: Leaked phone calls
>
>Ya'll missed the election. You lost. We won. Turn off Fox.
>
>Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
>
>Larry Talbot <larry.talbot@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>You can wipe the peanuts off of your nose now Tommy.Jiggly won't mind.
>> From: boldsaber@gmail.com
>>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>>Subject: RE: Leaked phone calls
>>Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:41:05 -0600
>>
>>Well stated and true, JGG. Tom "Send Lawyers, Guns, and
>Money,The Shit has hit the Fan""Hiding in Honduras" - Warren Zevon From:
>opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>[mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com]
>On Behalf Of old fashion liberal
>>Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:27 PM
>>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>>Subject: Re: Leaked phone calls As I suggested, the left will defend
>>Obama
>even as it makes them look silly... Rather like the 30's apologists for
>Stalin and Hitler... The obstructionist here is OBAMA... A divided
>Congress is not a rubber stamp for a very partisan President, nor should
you
>demand it to be just that... This is just the same BS partisanship Obama
>did the last four years...
>>
>>PS The GOP majority in the House lives and dies by their constituents
>>--
>the constituents re-elected a GOP House...
>>
>>On Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:36:18 PM UTC-5, Lynne wrote:Well
>>fancy
>that. The obstructionistas got caught at their own game. The president
>is taking his case to the voters. You remember.We used to be called
>constituents.Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&Told fashion liberal
><jgg...@hotmail.com> wrote:>do not provide for bi-partisan trust... Now
>either the GOP or the WH
>>>leaked the information... I will not be surprised if the Left assumes
>>>Obama did not leak this... Then again I assume Obama lies often to
>>>bludgeon his opponents... As with Libya, the same old same old...
>>>
>>>Obama has lost all remaining trust the GOP had with Obama... My take is
>>>Obama wants a confrontation... Obama does not want to work with the
>GOP...
>>>
>>>http://www.rollcall.com/news/boehner_angered_by_wh_leak-219501-1.html?
>>>pos=hftxt
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>Speaker John A. Boehner <http://www.rollcall.com/members/379.html> of
>>>Ohio and Republican leaders are fuming after a late night phone call
>>>with President Barack Obama was leaked to the press, despite an
>>>agreement that it would not be, according to several GOP aides.
>>>
>>>Republicans believe the administration leaked details of the
>>>30-minute Wednesday night phone call to
>>>Politico<http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/fiscal-cliff-tim-geith
>>>n er-heads-to-capitol-hill-84392.html>,
>>>which is causing them to question whether they can trust the White
>>>House to keep details private, a sentiment that has caused progress
>>>in the negotiations over the "fiscal cliff" to stall.
>>>
>>>White House aides, however, denied that the leak came from the
>>>administration.
>>>
>>>Nevertheless, the leak adds to Republicans' already simmering
>>>tensions with Obama over his decision to travel to Pennsylvania to
>>>take his case for a tax hike on high-income earners to the public.
>>>Republicans believe the president is more interested in raking them
>>>over the coals publicly than striking a deal privately.
>>>
>>>Boehner alluded to as much in a Thursday press briefing.
>>>
>>>"Listen, this is not a game. Jobs are on the line, the American
>>>economy is on the line and this is the moment for adult leadership,"
>>>he
>said.
>>>"Campaign style rallies and one-sided leaks in the press are not the
>>>way to get things done here in Washington."
>>>
>>>He added, "Right now all eyes are on the White House. The country
>>>doesn't need a victory lap, it needs leadership."
>>>
>>>--
>>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDeb...@googlegroups.com To
>>>unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>OpenDebateFor...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group
>>>at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>>---
>>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>>To post to this group, send email to opendeb...@googlegroups.com.
>>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebatefor...@googlegroups.com.
>>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>--
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>For more options, visit this group at
>>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>---
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>
>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>
>>For more options, visit this group at
>>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>
>>---
>>
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>
>>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>
>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>For more options, visit this group at
>>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>---
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com To
unsubscribe from this group, send email to
OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Censorship
Although veiled your accusation us evident. I did nothing to any of your posts. And yes. I did tell you to shut up and get out of the Rwanda bubble. Reality is a lot less stressful.
Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
CarmenEllen95@aol.com wrote:
>That's weird.
>I've sent messages that never showed up, but never have had a message
>posted and then vanish.
>
>
>In a message dated 11/29/2012 6:10:37 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>jgg1000@hotmail.com writes:
>
>For about a week, all my posts were deleted after a minute or so... Not
>by me, but by google or someone in this forum... This started just after
>Lynn told me to STFU as I recall... After a few days, Anne did reply
>saying I was not banned... When I replied to that, my posts were not
>removed...
>
>Who did what, I have no clue... I do not expect to understand who did
>what...
>
>On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:43:45 PM UTC-5, Carmen...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>What happened?
>
>
>In a message dated 11/26/2012 3:04:16 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>_jgg...@hotmail.com_ (javascript:) writes:
>
>on this forum is alive and real
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to _OpenDeb...@googlegroups.Ope_
>(javascript:)
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>_OpenDebateFor...@OpenDebateFor..._ (javascript:)
>For more options, visit this group at
>_http://groups.google.com/http://groups.google.com/<W_ (http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en)
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to _opendeb...@googlegroups.ope_
>(javascript:) .
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>_opendebatefor...@opendebatefor..._ (javascript:) .
>Visit this group at _http://groups.google.com/http://groups.google.com/<W_
>(http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en) .
>For more options, visit _https://groups.google.com/https://groups_
>(https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out) .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at
>_http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en_ (http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en)
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at _http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en_
>(http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en) .
>For more options, visit _https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out_
>(https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out) .
>
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
CarmenEllen95@aol.com wrote:
>That's weird.
>I've sent messages that never showed up, but never have had a message
>posted and then vanish.
>
>
>In a message dated 11/29/2012 6:10:37 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>jgg1000@hotmail.com writes:
>
>For about a week, all my posts were deleted after a minute or so... Not
>by me, but by google or someone in this forum... This started just after
>Lynn told me to STFU as I recall... After a few days, Anne did reply
>saying I was not banned... When I replied to that, my posts were not
>removed...
>
>Who did what, I have no clue... I do not expect to understand who did
>what...
>
>On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:43:45 PM UTC-5, Carmen...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>What happened?
>
>
>In a message dated 11/26/2012 3:04:16 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>_jgg...@hotmail.com_ (javascript:) writes:
>
>on this forum is alive and real
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to _OpenDeb...@googlegroups.Ope_
>(javascript:)
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>_OpenDebateFor...@OpenDebateFor..._ (javascript:)
>For more options, visit this group at
>_http://groups.google.com/http://groups.google.com/<W_ (http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en)
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to _opendeb...@googlegroups.ope_
>(javascript:) .
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>_opendebatefor...@opendebatefor..._ (javascript:) .
>Visit this group at _http://groups.google.com/http://groups.google.com/<W_
>(http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en) .
>For more options, visit _https://groups.google.com/https://groups_
>(https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out) .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at
>_http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en_ (http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en)
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at _http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en_
>(http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en) .
>For more options, visit _https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out_
>(https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out) .
>
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Leaked phone calls
Tom. I wish you understood there is no such thing as a fiscal cliff. We are only as weak as fear makes us. If we continue to act in fear the terrorist factions win. Obama made an opening bid on the budget issues. Now it's on Boehner. I feel sorry for you that your party just hit on the head with a 2 x 4. I hope you get over the concussion sob.
Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
Tom <boldsaber@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yep, we lost the election and leftists figured we'd feel defeated and become
>docile and that the Emperor would just roll out his sick agenda with no
>problem. Well, didn't happen. Whether you agree with us or not, we are
>fighting a major threat to our country and the total decimation of the
>values on which the nation has stood. You may not see it that way, but we
>do and we're not known to avert our eyes, whip our tails down and slink off
>from the wannabee alpha wolf of Totalitarianism. . We're sheepdogs not curs
>and when faced with wolves we bare our teeth and lunge forward to bite the
>jugular of the nearest wolf.
>
>Tom
>"Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money,
>The Shit has hit the Fan"
>"Hiding in Honduras"
>- Warren Zevon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>[mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of lynnk05@aol.com
>Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 5:42 PM
>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>Subject: RE: Leaked phone calls
>
>Ya'll missed the election. You lost. We won. Turn off Fox.
>
>Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
>
>Larry Talbot <larry.talbot@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>You can wipe the peanuts off of your nose now Tommy.Jiggly won't mind.
>> From: boldsaber@gmail.com
>>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>>Subject: RE: Leaked phone calls
>>Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:41:05 -0600
>>
>>Well stated and true, JGG. Tom "Send Lawyers, Guns, and
>Money,The Shit has hit the Fan""Hiding in Honduras" - Warren Zevon From:
>opendebateforum@googlegroups.com [mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com]
>On Behalf Of old fashion liberal
>>Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:27 PM
>>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>>Subject: Re: Leaked phone calls As I suggested, the left will defend Obama
>even as it makes them look silly... Rather like the 30's apologists for
>Stalin and Hitler... The obstructionist here is OBAMA... A divided
>Congress is not a rubber stamp for a very partisan President, nor should you
>demand it to be just that... This is just the same BS partisanship Obama
>did the last four years...
>>
>>PS The GOP majority in the House lives and dies by their constituents --
>the constituents re-elected a GOP House...
>>
>>On Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:36:18 PM UTC-5, Lynne wrote:Well fancy
>that. The obstructionistas got caught at their own game. The president is
>taking his case to the voters. You remember.We used to be called
>constituents.Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&Told fashion liberal
><jgg...@hotmail.com> wrote:>do not provide for bi-partisan trust... Now
>either the GOP or the WH
>>>leaked the information... I will not be surprised if the Left assumes
>>>Obama did not leak this... Then again I assume Obama lies often to
>>>bludgeon his opponents... As with Libya, the same old same old...
>>>
>>>Obama has lost all remaining trust the GOP had with Obama... My take is
>>>Obama wants a confrontation... Obama does not want to work with the
>GOP...
>>>
>>>http://www.rollcall.com/news/boehner_angered_by_wh_leak-219501-1.html?
>>>pos=hftxt
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>Speaker John A. Boehner <http://www.rollcall.com/members/379.html> of
>>>Ohio and Republican leaders are fuming after a late night phone call
>>>with President Barack Obama was leaked to the press, despite an
>>>agreement that it would not be, according to several GOP aides.
>>>
>>>Republicans believe the administration leaked details of the 30-minute
>>>Wednesday night phone call to
>>>Politico<http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/fiscal-cliff-tim-geithn
>>>er-heads-to-capitol-hill-84392.html>,
>>>which is causing them to question whether they can trust the White
>>>House to keep details private, a sentiment that has caused progress in
>>>the negotiations over the "fiscal cliff" to stall.
>>>
>>>White House aides, however, denied that the leak came from the
>>>administration.
>>>
>>>Nevertheless, the leak adds to Republicans' already simmering tensions
>>>with Obama over his decision to travel to Pennsylvania to take his
>>>case for a tax hike on high-income earners to the public. Republicans
>>>believe the president is more interested in raking them over the coals
>>>publicly than striking a deal privately.
>>>
>>>Boehner alluded to as much in a Thursday press briefing.
>>>
>>>"Listen, this is not a game. Jobs are on the line, the American
>>>economy is on the line and this is the moment for adult leadership," he
>said.
>>>"Campaign style rallies and one-sided leaks in the press are not the
>>>way to get things done here in Washington."
>>>
>>>He added, "Right now all eyes are on the White House. The country
>>>doesn't need a victory lap, it needs leadership."
>>>
>>>--
>>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDeb...@googlegroups.com To
>>>unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>OpenDebateFor...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group
>>>at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>>---
>>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>>To post to this group, send email to opendeb...@googlegroups.com.
>>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebatefor...@googlegroups.com.
>>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>--
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>For more options, visit this group at
>>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>---
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>
>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>
>>For more options, visit this group at
>>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>
>>---
>>
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>
>>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>
>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>For more options, visit this group at
>>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>---
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com To
>unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
Tom <boldsaber@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yep, we lost the election and leftists figured we'd feel defeated and become
>docile and that the Emperor would just roll out his sick agenda with no
>problem. Well, didn't happen. Whether you agree with us or not, we are
>fighting a major threat to our country and the total decimation of the
>values on which the nation has stood. You may not see it that way, but we
>do and we're not known to avert our eyes, whip our tails down and slink off
>from the wannabee alpha wolf of Totalitarianism. . We're sheepdogs not curs
>and when faced with wolves we bare our teeth and lunge forward to bite the
>jugular of the nearest wolf.
>
>Tom
>"Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money,
>The Shit has hit the Fan"
>"Hiding in Honduras"
>- Warren Zevon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>[mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of lynnk05@aol.com
>Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 5:42 PM
>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>Subject: RE: Leaked phone calls
>
>Ya'll missed the election. You lost. We won. Turn off Fox.
>
>Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
>
>Larry Talbot <larry.talbot@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>You can wipe the peanuts off of your nose now Tommy.Jiggly won't mind.
>> From: boldsaber@gmail.com
>>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>>Subject: RE: Leaked phone calls
>>Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:41:05 -0600
>>
>>Well stated and true, JGG. Tom "Send Lawyers, Guns, and
>Money,The Shit has hit the Fan""Hiding in Honduras" - Warren Zevon From:
>opendebateforum@googlegroups.com [mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com]
>On Behalf Of old fashion liberal
>>Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:27 PM
>>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>>Subject: Re: Leaked phone calls As I suggested, the left will defend Obama
>even as it makes them look silly... Rather like the 30's apologists for
>Stalin and Hitler... The obstructionist here is OBAMA... A divided
>Congress is not a rubber stamp for a very partisan President, nor should you
>demand it to be just that... This is just the same BS partisanship Obama
>did the last four years...
>>
>>PS The GOP majority in the House lives and dies by their constituents --
>the constituents re-elected a GOP House...
>>
>>On Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:36:18 PM UTC-5, Lynne wrote:Well fancy
>that. The obstructionistas got caught at their own game. The president is
>taking his case to the voters. You remember.We used to be called
>constituents.Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&Told fashion liberal
><jgg...@hotmail.com> wrote:>do not provide for bi-partisan trust... Now
>either the GOP or the WH
>>>leaked the information... I will not be surprised if the Left assumes
>>>Obama did not leak this... Then again I assume Obama lies often to
>>>bludgeon his opponents... As with Libya, the same old same old...
>>>
>>>Obama has lost all remaining trust the GOP had with Obama... My take is
>>>Obama wants a confrontation... Obama does not want to work with the
>GOP...
>>>
>>>http://www.rollcall.com/news/boehner_angered_by_wh_leak-219501-1.html?
>>>pos=hftxt
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>Speaker John A. Boehner <http://www.rollcall.com/members/379.html> of
>>>Ohio and Republican leaders are fuming after a late night phone call
>>>with President Barack Obama was leaked to the press, despite an
>>>agreement that it would not be, according to several GOP aides.
>>>
>>>Republicans believe the administration leaked details of the 30-minute
>>>Wednesday night phone call to
>>>Politico<http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/fiscal-cliff-tim-geithn
>>>er-heads-to-capitol-hill-84392.html>,
>>>which is causing them to question whether they can trust the White
>>>House to keep details private, a sentiment that has caused progress in
>>>the negotiations over the "fiscal cliff" to stall.
>>>
>>>White House aides, however, denied that the leak came from the
>>>administration.
>>>
>>>Nevertheless, the leak adds to Republicans' already simmering tensions
>>>with Obama over his decision to travel to Pennsylvania to take his
>>>case for a tax hike on high-income earners to the public. Republicans
>>>believe the president is more interested in raking them over the coals
>>>publicly than striking a deal privately.
>>>
>>>Boehner alluded to as much in a Thursday press briefing.
>>>
>>>"Listen, this is not a game. Jobs are on the line, the American
>>>economy is on the line and this is the moment for adult leadership," he
>said.
>>>"Campaign style rallies and one-sided leaks in the press are not the
>>>way to get things done here in Washington."
>>>
>>>He added, "Right now all eyes are on the White House. The country
>>>doesn't need a victory lap, it needs leadership."
>>>
>>>--
>>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDeb...@googlegroups.com To
>>>unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>OpenDebateFor...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group
>>>at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>>---
>>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>>To post to this group, send email to opendeb...@googlegroups.com.
>>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebatefor...@googlegroups.com.
>>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>--
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>For more options, visit this group at
>>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>---
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>
>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>
>>For more options, visit this group at
>>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>
>>---
>>
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>
>>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>
>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>For more options, visit this group at
>>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>---
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com To
>unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Leaked phone calls
Yep, we lost the election and leftists figured we'd feel defeated and become
docile and that the Emperor would just roll out his sick agenda with no
problem. Well, didn't happen. Whether you agree with us or not, we are
fighting a major threat to our country and the total decimation of the
values on which the nation has stood. You may not see it that way, but we
do and we're not known to avert our eyes, whip our tails down and slink off
from the wannabee alpha wolf of Totalitarianism. . We're sheepdogs not curs
and when faced with wolves we bare our teeth and lunge forward to bite the
jugular of the nearest wolf.
Tom
"Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money,
The Shit has hit the Fan"
"Hiding in Honduras"
- Warren Zevon
-----Original Message-----
From: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
[mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of lynnk05@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 5:42 PM
To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Leaked phone calls
Ya'll missed the election. You lost. We won. Turn off Fox.
Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
Larry Talbot <larry.talbot@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>You can wipe the peanuts off of your nose now Tommy.Jiggly won't mind.
> From: boldsaber@gmail.com
>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>Subject: RE: Leaked phone calls
>Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:41:05 -0600
>
>Well stated and true, JGG. Tom "Send Lawyers, Guns, and
Money,The Shit has hit the Fan""Hiding in Honduras" - Warren Zevon From:
opendebateforum@googlegroups.com [mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of old fashion liberal
>Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:27 PM
>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>Subject: Re: Leaked phone calls As I suggested, the left will defend Obama
even as it makes them look silly... Rather like the 30's apologists for
Stalin and Hitler... The obstructionist here is OBAMA... A divided
Congress is not a rubber stamp for a very partisan President, nor should you
demand it to be just that... This is just the same BS partisanship Obama
did the last four years...
>
>PS The GOP majority in the House lives and dies by their constituents --
the constituents re-elected a GOP House...
>
>On Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:36:18 PM UTC-5, Lynne wrote:Well fancy
that. The obstructionistas got caught at their own game. The president is
taking his case to the voters. You remember.We used to be called
constituents.Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&Told fashion liberal
<jgg...@hotmail.com> wrote:>do not provide for bi-partisan trust... Now
either the GOP or the WH
>>leaked the information... I will not be surprised if the Left assumes
>>Obama did not leak this... Then again I assume Obama lies often to
>>bludgeon his opponents... As with Libya, the same old same old...
>>
>>Obama has lost all remaining trust the GOP had with Obama... My take is
>>Obama wants a confrontation... Obama does not want to work with the
GOP...
>>
>>http://www.rollcall.com/news/boehner_angered_by_wh_leak-219501-1.html?
>>pos=hftxt
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>Speaker John A. Boehner <http://www.rollcall.com/members/379.html> of
>>Ohio and Republican leaders are fuming after a late night phone call
>>with President Barack Obama was leaked to the press, despite an
>>agreement that it would not be, according to several GOP aides.
>>
>>Republicans believe the administration leaked details of the 30-minute
>>Wednesday night phone call to
>>Politico<http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/fiscal-cliff-tim-geithn
>>er-heads-to-capitol-hill-84392.html>,
>>which is causing them to question whether they can trust the White
>>House to keep details private, a sentiment that has caused progress in
>>the negotiations over the "fiscal cliff" to stall.
>>
>>White House aides, however, denied that the leak came from the
>>administration.
>>
>>Nevertheless, the leak adds to Republicans' already simmering tensions
>>with Obama over his decision to travel to Pennsylvania to take his
>>case for a tax hike on high-income earners to the public. Republicans
>>believe the president is more interested in raking them over the coals
>>publicly than striking a deal privately.
>>
>>Boehner alluded to as much in a Thursday press briefing.
>>
>>"Listen, this is not a game. Jobs are on the line, the American
>>economy is on the line and this is the moment for adult leadership," he
said.
>>"Campaign style rallies and one-sided leaks in the press are not the
>>way to get things done here in Washington."
>>
>>He added, "Right now all eyes are on the White House. The country
>>doesn't need a victory lap, it needs leadership."
>>
>>--
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDeb...@googlegroups.com To
>>unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>OpenDebateFor...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group
>>at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>---
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to opendeb...@googlegroups.com.
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
opendebatefor...@googlegroups.com.
>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>
>---
>
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com To
unsubscribe from this group, send email to
OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
docile and that the Emperor would just roll out his sick agenda with no
problem. Well, didn't happen. Whether you agree with us or not, we are
fighting a major threat to our country and the total decimation of the
values on which the nation has stood. You may not see it that way, but we
do and we're not known to avert our eyes, whip our tails down and slink off
from the wannabee alpha wolf of Totalitarianism. . We're sheepdogs not curs
and when faced with wolves we bare our teeth and lunge forward to bite the
jugular of the nearest wolf.
Tom
"Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money,
The Shit has hit the Fan"
"Hiding in Honduras"
- Warren Zevon
-----Original Message-----
From: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
[mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of lynnk05@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 5:42 PM
To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Leaked phone calls
Ya'll missed the election. You lost. We won. Turn off Fox.
Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T
Larry Talbot <larry.talbot@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>You can wipe the peanuts off of your nose now Tommy.Jiggly won't mind.
> From: boldsaber@gmail.com
>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>Subject: RE: Leaked phone calls
>Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:41:05 -0600
>
>Well stated and true, JGG. Tom "Send Lawyers, Guns, and
Money,The Shit has hit the Fan""Hiding in Honduras" - Warren Zevon From:
opendebateforum@googlegroups.com [mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of old fashion liberal
>Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:27 PM
>To: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>Subject: Re: Leaked phone calls As I suggested, the left will defend Obama
even as it makes them look silly... Rather like the 30's apologists for
Stalin and Hitler... The obstructionist here is OBAMA... A divided
Congress is not a rubber stamp for a very partisan President, nor should you
demand it to be just that... This is just the same BS partisanship Obama
did the last four years...
>
>PS The GOP majority in the House lives and dies by their constituents --
the constituents re-elected a GOP House...
>
>On Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:36:18 PM UTC-5, Lynne wrote:Well fancy
that. The obstructionistas got caught at their own game. The president is
taking his case to the voters. You remember.We used to be called
constituents.Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&Told fashion liberal
<jgg...@hotmail.com> wrote:>do not provide for bi-partisan trust... Now
either the GOP or the WH
>>leaked the information... I will not be surprised if the Left assumes
>>Obama did not leak this... Then again I assume Obama lies often to
>>bludgeon his opponents... As with Libya, the same old same old...
>>
>>Obama has lost all remaining trust the GOP had with Obama... My take is
>>Obama wants a confrontation... Obama does not want to work with the
GOP...
>>
>>http://www.rollcall.com/news/boehner_angered_by_wh_leak-219501-1.html?
>>pos=hftxt
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>Speaker John A. Boehner <http://www.rollcall.com/members/379.html> of
>>Ohio and Republican leaders are fuming after a late night phone call
>>with President Barack Obama was leaked to the press, despite an
>>agreement that it would not be, according to several GOP aides.
>>
>>Republicans believe the administration leaked details of the 30-minute
>>Wednesday night phone call to
>>Politico<http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/fiscal-cliff-tim-geithn
>>er-heads-to-capitol-hill-84392.html>,
>>which is causing them to question whether they can trust the White
>>House to keep details private, a sentiment that has caused progress in
>>the negotiations over the "fiscal cliff" to stall.
>>
>>White House aides, however, denied that the leak came from the
>>administration.
>>
>>Nevertheless, the leak adds to Republicans' already simmering tensions
>>with Obama over his decision to travel to Pennsylvania to take his
>>case for a tax hike on high-income earners to the public. Republicans
>>believe the president is more interested in raking them over the coals
>>publicly than striking a deal privately.
>>
>>Boehner alluded to as much in a Thursday press briefing.
>>
>>"Listen, this is not a game. Jobs are on the line, the American
>>economy is on the line and this is the moment for adult leadership," he
said.
>>"Campaign style rallies and one-sided leaks in the press are not the
>>way to get things done here in Washington."
>>
>>He added, "Right now all eyes are on the White House. The country
>>doesn't need a victory lap, it needs leadership."
>>
>>--
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to OpenDeb...@googlegroups.com To
>>unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>OpenDebateFor...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group
>>at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>---
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to opendeb...@googlegroups.com.
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
opendebatefor...@googlegroups.com.
>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>
>---
>
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com To
unsubscribe from this group, send email to
OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.