Liberals Unite!

[RanchHQ]

Rep. Dan Lungren will be holding an "Open House" for his Constituents in Jackson (info below) soon.

Your chance to voice your satisfaction with all matters, including, but not limited to:

1. The Stimulus Bill and how it has brought true stimulus to your State.

2. How the closing of the Military Prison in Guantanamo has not only helped our Country's reputation in the World, but will certainly make us all feel safer.

3. How the appointment of close to 40 "Czars" in the Administration and how happy you are that they are able to work behind the scenes, with no Congressional Oversight.

4. How the Appointments of Registered Lobbyists to The Administration really is no big deal.

5. How dropping all charges against the Terrorist suspected in bombing the USS Cole was the human thing to do.

6. Show your Support for the lack of a Withdrawal Timetable for our Troops in Afghanistan.

7. Show your Support for the complete alienation of our only true Ally in the Mid East, Israel.

8. Time to show your support for whatever it is called this week, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Reform, Insurance Reform.....

Time to make those signs, find a Carpool, and show you're satisfaction to Rep. Lungren!

Saturday, August 22nd 10:30- 12noon
Jackson
Civic Center
33 Broadway
Jackson, CA 95642

[RanchHQ]

Note to those attending Congressman Lungren's(R-CA) Town Hall:

1. Leave all your Nazi stuff at home. Madam Speaker Pelosi(D-CA) has made note of your taking Nazi stuff to Town Hall Meetings and ya know it really doesn't look cool.

2. Dress down a bit. Senator Barbara Boxer(D-CA) has made note of our natty attire and it bugs her. I hear tie-die is back.

Just a reminder:

Saturday, August 22nd 10:30- 12noon
Jackson
Civic Center
33 Broadway
Jackson, CA 95642

Note to those represented by Congresswoman/person Doris Matsui(D-CA):

No Local Town Hall Meetings Scheduled.

[RanchHQ]

More on Rep. Lungren's Town Hall:

The "Dean of The Democratic Congress" reminds all those that attend to leave our White Robes and Hoods at home.

"Hate Speech" anyone?


Video: Dingell says town-hall protests remind him of the Klan

posted at 11:36 am on August 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey


Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer have called the constituents speaking out against ObamaCare at town halls “un-American,” and that didn’t slow them down. Will calling them “racists” do it? MS-NBC’s Ed Schultz tosses a softball to Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), last seen being flummoxed by his own constituents last week. At the time, Dingell dismissed his critics as “infiltrators.” Today, they’re the equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan (via The Weekly Standard):

YouTube - Dingell compares town hall mobs to the KKK

YouTube - Dingell compares town hall mobs to the KKK

What message has the House Democratic leadership sent this week to voters in their district? If you show up to town halls to criticize us, you’re un-American Klan members. Somewhere in here, there’s a killer GOP television spot just itching to run in the summer of 2010.

LINK: Hot Air Blog Archive Video: Dingell says town-hall protests remind him of the Klan

[dreamliner]

Originally Posted by RanchHQ

The "Dean of The Democratic Congress" reminds all those that attend to leave our White Robes and Hoods at home.
"Hate Speech" anyone?

Smells more like racism to me.

[RanchHQ]

[RanchHQ]

[RanchHQ]

The Rich get Richer while the Poor get Poorer.

Here is an idea: We need bigger Government, with more Government Workers to lessen the gap between Rich and Poor.

That's what they did in Europe and the have Free Health Care for everyone.

Brilliant!



Op-Ed Columnist
Inequality as Usual

By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: October 4, 2009

Not long ago, liberals were insisting that income inequality was America’s most serious economic problem.



Susan Etheridge for The New York Times



Now there are more immediate crises: A 9.8 percent unemployment rate, a yawning budget deficit. But the inequality issue hasn’t gone away.

The latest census figures show the gap between the wealthiest Americans and everybody else widening — rather than shrinking, as some economists expected — during the crash of 2008. An August report from Bank of America/Merrill Lynch suggested that middle-income Americans, buried in real-estate debt, will have to wait much longer than the rich to see their finances rebound.


This landscape will put liberalism to the test. Since Ronald Reagan was elected nearly 30 years ago, Democratic politicians have promised that their program could reverse the steady post-1970s growth of income inequality without sacrificing America’s economic dynamism.

But having promised win-win, they may deliver lose-lose. In the short run, Barack Obama could preside over an America that’s more economically stagnant and more stratified.

There’s only so much that politicians can do about broad socioeconomic trends. The rise of a more unequal America is a vexingly complicated issue, whose roots may wind too deep for public policy to reach.

Liberals, though, have spent decades telling a more simplistic story, in which conservatives bear all the blame for stagnating middle-class wages and skyrocketing upper-class wealth. So it’s fair to say that if a period of Democratic dominance doesn’t close the gap between the rich and the rest of us, it will represent a significant policy failure for contemporary liberalism.

It’s also fair to point out some reasons failure is a likely outcome.
For one thing, the lazy liberal’s cure for income inequality — soaking the wealthy with higher tax rates and cutting taxes for everybody else — simply isn’t going to happen.

In part, this is because the Democrats have become as much the party of the rich as the Republicans, and parties rarely overtax their own contributors. (That’s why the plan to pay for health-care reform with a “surtax” on high earners found so many skeptics within the Democratic caucus.)

But it’s also because soaking the rich only makes a difference on the margins. The federal income tax is already quite progressive, and our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the West. To really create a more egalitarian America, we have to address trends that run deeper than the tax code. But many of these are issues that the Democrats are either unwilling or ill equipped to tackle.

For instance, inequality is driven in part by low-skilled immigration: it nudges wages downward for native workers, and the immigrants themselves are taking longer to achieve upward mobility than earlier generations did.

But today’s Democrats, bent on consolidating the Hispanic vote, aren’t likely to seek a lower immigration rate, or a better-educated pool of immigrants. The kind of “comprehensive” immigration reform that liberals support would probably increase low-skilled migration to the United States.

Inequality is also driven by the collapse of the two-parent household, which disproportionately affects the poor and working class, depriving them of the social capital they need to rise.

But today’s Democratic Party increasingly represents “unmarried America” — the single, the childless, the divorced. This makes it an unlikely vehicle for policies that discriminate, whether through tax code or the welfare state, in favor of the traditional nuclear family.

Inequality is perpetuated by our failing education system — and especially by the bloated cartel responsible for educating the nation’s poorest children. (If you want to understand inequality in America, start with last spring’s Los Angeles Times series on what it takes to fire a lousy teacher in the Angeleno school system.)

But today’s Democrats, the heroic efforts of some liberals notwithstanding, remain the party of the education bureaucracy, resistant to all but the most incremental efforts to bring choice and competition to our public schools.

There is, however, one way that a Democrat majority can plausibly bring down inequality: Just let government keep growing.

This is the lesson of Western Europe, where the public sector is larger and the income distribution much more egalitarian. The European experience suggests that specific policy interventions — the shape of the tax code, the design of the education system — may matter less in the long run than the sheer size of the state. If you funnel enough of a nation’s gross domestic product through a bureaucracy, the gap between the upper class and everybody else usually compresses.

But economic growth often compresses along with it. This is already the logic of our current fiscal trajectory: ever-larger government, and ever-slower growth.

That combination could eventually create the more egalitarian America that Democrats have long promised to deliver. The question is whether Americans will thank them for it.

LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/op...that.html?_r=1