May182013
teabonics-fb:

In case anyone’s keeping track.

The Radical Republicans want the country to fail. 
That is their extremist agenda.

teabonics-fb:

In case anyone’s keeping track.

The Radical Republicans want the country to fail. 

That is their extremist agenda.

May122013
“On November 7th, his administration gleefully voted at the UN for a renewed effort to pass the ‘Small Arms Treaty.’ But after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut — and anti-gun hysteria in the national media reaching a fever pitch — there’s no doubt President Obama and his anti-gun pals believe the timing has never been better to ram through the U.N.’s global gun control crown jewel. I don’t know about you, but watching anti-American globalists plot against our Constitution makes me sick.” An email from Senator Rand Paul, on behalf of the National Association of Gun Rights • Decrying the Obama administration’s shadowy collaboration with the United Nations, aimed at a constitutional end-around abolishing the Second Amendment via international arms treaty. If you haven’t heard about this, that may be because it’s actually a well-worn and fallacious conspiracy theory, but that didn’t stop Paul from lending to name to this paranoia-fueled fundraising effort from the National Association of Gun Rights. It’s a theory cut from virtually the same intellectual cloth as those UN-centric “Agenda 21” conspiracy theories, propagated by people like Alex Jones — who, as it happens, has landed the Kentucky Senator as an interview guest in the past. This is a major issue facing Paul, should he indulge bigger, national political ambitions — he’s proven extremely willing to court the affections (and in the process endorse the ideas) of people far out on the conspiratorial right-wing. source (via shortformblog)

(via other-stuff)

May72013
May42013
April302013

In 2010, Republicans threatened to put the nation into default unless Democrats agreed to fulfill every wild conservative wish, more or less, about the size of government. This time? Apparently, Republicans are planning to threaten default unless they get … tax reform!

abaldwin360:

GOP’s debt limit threat goes off the rails

(The Washington Post) - That’s the takeaway from a nice Post story about GOP strategy heading into the need to raise the debt limit this summer. The problem, basically, is that Republicans have already cut discretionary spending deeply thanks to sequestration, so it’s relatively hard for them to ask for that. What about entitlement cuts? Yes, Republicans had previously claimed they wanted entitlement cuts, and in his budget, Obama offered them Chained CPI on Social Security. But while cutting “entitlements” in the abstract is a big attraction for many conservatives, cutting Social Security and Medicare – which is what cutting entitlements actually means — is unpopular. So — while this is not entirely clear cut or decided — House Republicans apparently have suddenly decided they don’t want to ask for those in exchange for the debt limit hike, either.

Instead, they are considering forcing the Democrats to go along with them on tax reform. Jonathan Chait had some fun with this by noting that the main difference between the parties on tax reform is that Republicans insist on revenue-neutral tax reform while Democrats want net revenue increases, which means that Republicans would be threatening to default the nation unless Democrats … agree to larger deficits.

read more

The author of this story sums it up nicely in the last line of the story: This is what a “post-policy party” really looks like.

April272013
“An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing… Some have said that’s President Obama.” Fox host Andrea Tantaros brings back the long debunked myth, still very beloved by the conservative echo chamber, that President Obama was a Muslim.  (via mediamattersforamerica)
10AM
April212013
anarcho-queer:

House Republican’s Propose To End 40 Hour Work Week Law
House Republicans have introduced a bill that would end the 40-hour work week, dismantling an important component of the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 and hurting middle-class families across the country.
Sponsored by Rep. Martha Roby (AL), the dubiously-titled “Working Families Flexibility Act” (H.R. 1406) would remove the requirement that employers pay a cash premium for overtime work and instead allow them to offer employees compensatory time off. The effect would be an FLSA that is undermined of its only incentive against excessive hours and a cheaper way for employers to demand mandatory overtime.
Eileen Appelbaum, a senior economist with the Center for Economic Policy and Research, says the bill’s major effect would be to hurt workers, “likely increasing overtime hours for those who don’t want them and cutting pay for those who do.”
IAM International President Tom Buffenbarger wrote a letter to Congress encouraging them to vote against the bill.
“Employers can already work within the existing laws to allow workers adjusting work schedules around family needs without changing the 40-hour workweek,” Buffenbarger wrote. “‘Comp time’ proposals let the employer decide whether workers can use any accrued compensatory time. Additionally, nothing would prevent the employer from forcing workers to take time off individually or limiting whether workers can use the compensatory time at all if it is too burdensome to the work-load.”
The bill was referred to committee and could come to a vote in the House as early as next week.

anarcho-queer:

House Republican’s Propose To End 40 Hour Work Week Law

House Republicans have introduced a bill that would end the 40-hour work week, dismantling an important component of the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 and hurting middle-class families across the country.

Sponsored by Rep. Martha Roby (AL), the dubiously-titled “Working Families Flexibility Act” (H.R. 1406) would remove the requirement that employers pay a cash premium for overtime work and instead allow them to offer employees compensatory time off. The effect would be an FLSA that is undermined of its only incentive against excessive hours and a cheaper way for employers to demand mandatory overtime.

Eileen Appelbaum, a senior economist with the Center for Economic Policy and Research, says the bill’s major effect would be to hurt workers, “likely increasing overtime hours for those who don’t want them and cutting pay for those who do.

IAM International President Tom Buffenbarger wrote a letter to Congress encouraging them to vote against the bill.

Employers can already work within the existing laws to allow workers adjusting work schedules around family needs without changing the 40-hour workweek,” Buffenbarger wrote. “‘Comp time’ proposals let the employer decide whether workers can use any accrued compensatory time. Additionally, nothing would prevent the employer from forcing workers to take time off individually or limiting whether workers can use the compensatory time at all if it is too burdensome to the work-load.

The bill was referred to committee and could come to a vote in the House as early as next week.

(via sinidentidades)

April202013
April182013
← Older entries Page 1 of 12