<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19120">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Arial>I don't get it Colan.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Arial>How does a Monty Python comedy scene about
political sectarianism relate to accurate criticism about being sold
out by Obama and the majority of the democratic party.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Arial>But I have a suggestion for you.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Arial>Check out Cornell West's talk at Riverside church
from todays democracynow.org</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Arial>David Johnson</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=colanholmes@gmail.com href="mailto:colanholmes@gmail.com">Colan
Holmes</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=sf-core@yahoogroups.com
href="mailto:sf-core@yahoogroups.com">sf-core</A> ; <A
title=naiman.uiuc@gmail.com
href="mailto:naiman.uiuc@gmail.com">naiman.uiuc@gmail.com</A> ; <A
title=centralILJwJ@yahoogroups.com
href="mailto:centralILJwJ@yahoogroups.com">JWJ C-U</A> ; <A
title=dlj725@hughes.net href="mailto:dlj725@hughes.net">David Johnson</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, September 12, 2011 7:41
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [sf-core] Re: [CentralILJwJ]
Fw: Obama’s ‘Jobs Act’ Proposal: Why Less is More of the Same</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>To lighten this up a bit: <A
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE</A><BR><BR>Best,<BR>Colan<BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:07 AM, David Johnson <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:dlj725@hughes.net">dlj725@hughes.net</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>O.K. Bob,<BR><BR>Based on the info I had, there was NO
mention of making up the Social<BR>Security tax reduction via the General
fund of the Federal Govt.,<BR><BR>So I appologize for not having all of the
facts.<BR><BR>However, I do NOT trust Obama or any of his corporate allies
in either the<BR>dem or republican parties.when it comes to Social Security,
Medicare, or<BR>most things for tat matter.<BR><BR>His plan is a gimmick at
best.<BR><BR>David J.<BR><BR>P.S. Yes, I am on a " jihad " when it comes to
protecting Social SEcurity,<BR>EXPANDING Medicare, and advancing the
interests of working people.<BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message
-----<BR>From: "Robert Naiman" <<A
href="mailto:naiman.uiuc@gmail.com">naiman.uiuc@gmail.com</A>><BR>To: "C.
G. Estabrook" <<A
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</A>><BR>Cc:
"David Johnson" <<A
href="mailto:dlj725@hughes.net">dlj725@hughes.net</A>>; "Peace-discuss
List"<BR><<A
href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A>>;
"Socialist Forum"<BR><<A
href="mailto:sf-core@yahoogroups.com">sf-core@yahoogroups.com</A>><BR>Sent:
Sunday, September 11, 2011 9:24 PM<BR>Subject: Re: [sf-core] Re:
[CentralILJwJ] Fw: Obama’s ‘Jobs Act’ Proposal:<BR>
<DIV class=im>Why Less is More of the Same<BR><BR><BR></DIV>David seems to
be on one of his jihads here, so I'm going to bow out<BR>of this discussion
after clearing up one fact that David seems to be<BR>unwilling to concede,
or maybe David has permanently seceded from<BR>fact-land. It is a fact that
under Obama's proposal, as under the<BR>current payroll tax holiday, the
reduced revenues to Social Security<BR>will be made up from general
revenues:<BR><BR>""Normally, money from the payroll tax goes to fund Social
Security.<BR>Under Obama's plan, money would be transferred from the
government's<BR>general fund to cover the revenue losses to Social Security,
but<BR>Republicans argue that is a dangerous game."<BR><BR>- "Obama's
proposed tax cut a quandary for GOP," Lisa Mascaro and<BR>Peter Nicholas,
Los Angeles Times, September 09, 2011,<BR><A
href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/09/nation/la-na-obama-jobs-20110910"
target=_blank>http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/09/nation/la-na-obama-jobs-20110910</A><BR><BR>Hate
Obama as much as you want, but as I said and wrote repeatedly<BR>during the
George W. Bush administration in arguing that progressives<BR>should support
the Bush Administration's policies on reforming U.S.<BR>food aid by relaxing
the requirement that it be spent on U.S.<BR>agricultural goods and on
forcing the World Bank to convert from loans<BR>to grants in the poorest
countries: "If George W. Bush says that two<BR>plus two equals four, it's
still four."<BR><BR>On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 7:19 PM, C. G. Estabrook <<A
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</A>><BR>wrote:<BR>>
"...Listening to Obama talk about jobs and shared prosperity
yesterday<BR>> reminded me that we are back in campaign mode and Barack
Obama has started<BR>> doing again what he does best – play the part of a
progressive. He's good<BR>> at<BR>> it. It sounds like he has a
natural affinity for union workers and<BR>> ordinary<BR>> people when
he makes these speeches. But his policies are crafted by<BR>>
representatives of corporate/financial America, who happen to
entirely<BR>> make<BR>> up his inner circle.<BR>><BR>> "I just
don't believe this guy anymore, and it's become almost painful to<BR>>
listen to him."<BR>><BR>> [From <<A
href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/06-6"
target=_blank>http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/06-6</A>>.]<BR>><BR>><BR>>
On 9/11/11 7:10 PM, C. G. ESTABROOK
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> Bob's argument would make sense
if it weren't for what Obama said in<BR>>> the course of the deficit
talks: that he supports massive cuts in<BR>>> entitlement programs,
including Social Security, and that he supports<BR>>> the most modest
of tax increases on the wealthy in order to provide a<BR>>> patina of
'fairness' and 'shared sacrifice,' without materially<BR>>> affecting
the super-rich. --CGE<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> On 9/11/11 6:49
PM, David Johnson wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
*Bob,* ** *You obviously have NOT looked at the details of Obama's<BR>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5>>>> plan !* ** *It is SOLELY targeted at Social
Security payroll<BR>>>> taxes, both what employees and employers
pay.* ** *It is a<BR>>>> DEFUNDING of Social Security !* *Pure and
simple !* ** *It<BR>>>> specificly says that ; " Social Security
payroll taxes paid by BOTH<BR>>>> employers and employees will be
reduced from 6.2 % to 4.2% and then<BR>>>> to 3.1%.* *AND, in
addition to this, employers will be exempt from<BR>>>> paying ANY (
NO ) social security tax for ALL new hires and for ALL<BR>>>>
employees they give a raise to ( which the percentage wage
increase<BR>>>> is unspecified, so it could be as little as 1- cent
per hour ), up<BR>>>> to FIFTY MILLION dollars per COMPANY, with no
time limit specifics<BR>>>> !* ** *Face the facts, Obama is a
puppet of corporate America and a<BR>>>> closet republican
neo-con.* *He admires Ronald Reagan and has not<BR>>>> only
continued the Bush agenda but has expanded it beyond what
ANY<BR>>>> republican would have dared.* ** *The phoney son of a
bitch needs<BR>>>> to be " taken down " ! * ** *We need SOMEBODY to
run against him in<BR>>>> the Dem primaries ( Dennis Kucinch or
whoever ) and if that doesn't<BR>>>> work, we need a third party
candidate !* ** *Obama has betrayed<BR>>>> EVERY SINGLE campaign
promise he has made, and he needs to be<BR>>>> exposed and
opposed.* ** *Protecting Social Security and EXPANDING<BR>>>>
Medicare to every man, women and child in this country should
be<BR>>>> THE ISSUE that we need to advocate ( in addition to an
immediate<BR>>>> withdrawl of ALL U.S. troops and private
mercenaries from Iraq and<BR>>>> Afganistan, that would save the
taxpayers $ 2.7 BILLION a week ).*<BR>>>> ** *For those who agree,
we should support !* *For those who do NOT<BR>>>> support or state
wishy washy views, we need to vote out of office.*<BR>>>> ** *This
is THE issue we can win with !* ** *The time of automatic<BR>>>>
and blank check support for democrats is past.* *Until we
realize<BR>>>> this and PRACTICE this, this country and the world
is DOOMED !* **<BR>>>> *David J.* **
**<BR>>>><BR>>>> ----- Original Message ----- *From:*
Robert Naiman<BR></DIV></DIV>>>> <mailto:<A
href="mailto:naiman.uiuc@gmail.com">naiman.uiuc@gmail.com</A>> *To:*
David Johnson<BR>>>> <mailto:<A
href="mailto:dlj725@hughes.net">dlj725@hughes.net</A>> *Cc:* JWJ
C-U<BR>>>> <mailto:<A
href="mailto:centralILJwJ@yahoogroups.com">centralILJwJ@yahoogroups.com</A>>
*Sent:* Sunday, September<BR>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5>>>> 11, 2011 2:27 PM *Subject:* Re: [CentralILJwJ]
Fw: Obama’s ‘Jobs<BR>>>> Act’ Proposal: Why Less is More of the
Same<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
The payroll tax holiday isn't de-funding Social Security -
that<BR>>>> isn't the way the payroll tax holiday has worked so
far. The money<BR>>>> has been made up from general revenues.
Which, in fact, has had<BR>>>> the (temporary) effect of making
Social Security more progressive.<BR>>>> (The payroll tax is
regressive, because it is capped; Social<BR>>>> Security is
progressive overall, even though it is funded by a<BR>>>>
regressive tax, because the payout is steeply
progressive.)<BR>>>><BR>>>> Some progressives have in the
past argued against the payroll tax<BR>>>> holiday on the grounds -
they have argued - that it is dangerous<BR>>>> to weaken the
political link, even temporarily, between the payroll<BR>>>> tax
and the benefit, and that this weakening of the link will
later<BR>>>> be used as an argument to undermine the
program.<BR>>>><BR>>>> But, on balance - given that there
are very real benefits from the<BR>>>> payroll tax holiday, in
terms of economic relief for working<BR>>>> people in tough times
and in terms of boosting employment - I find<BR>>>> this argument
unconvincing. The link between the payroll tax and<BR>>>> the
benefit hasn't stopped people from arguing for cuts to
Social<BR>>>> Security benefits in the past, and current proposals
to cut<BR>>>> benefits, such as by cutting the cost of living
adjustment (a<BR>>>> proposal, unfortunately, supported by
President Obama) haven't<BR>>>> appeared to be slowed by the link
between the payroll tax and the<BR>>>>
benefit.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Furthermore, we already have a
payroll tax holiday at present, so<BR>>>> such a holiday has to be
withdrawn at some point, the question is:<BR>>>> now or later?
Later - when we no longer have 9.1% measured<BR>>>> unemployment -
makes more sense.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Given that extension of
the holiday - like extension of<BR>>>> unemployment benefits - is a
significant chunk of economic stimulus<BR>>>> that has a plausible
chance of getting through Congress right now,<BR>>>> I think that
on balance the extension of the payroll tax holiday is<BR>>>>
worthy of support. Others may disagree. But I think the claim
that<BR>>>> this is a nefarious plot to undermine Social Security
is<BR>>>> dramatically overblown.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
At the end of the day, Social Security is a check from the
U.S.<BR>>>> Treasury. At the end of the day, what defends Social
Security is<BR>>>> defending Social Security: a supermajority of
voters defending the<BR>>>>
payout.<BR>><BR>><BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=im>--<BR>Robert Naiman<BR>Policy Director<BR>Just Foreign
Policy<BR><A href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org"
target=_blank>www.justforeignpolicy.org</A><BR><A
href="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</A><BR><BR></DIV>Urge
Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal
from<BR>Afghanistan<BR><A
href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern"
target=_blank>http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern</A><BR><BR><BR>------------------------------------<BR><BR>Yahoo!
Groups
Links<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>------------------------------------<BR><BR>Yahoo!
Groups Links<BR><BR><*> To visit your group on the web, go
to:<BR> <A href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralILJwJ/"
target=_blank>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralILJwJ/</A><BR><BR><*>
Your email settings:<BR> Individual Email |
Traditional<BR><BR><*> To change settings online go to:<BR>
<A href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralILJwJ/join"
target=_blank>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralILJwJ/join</A><BR>
(Yahoo! ID required)<BR><BR><*> To change settings via
email:<BR> <A
href="mailto:CentralILJwJ-digest@yahoogroups.com">CentralILJwJ-digest@yahoogroups.com</A><BR>
<A
href="mailto:CentralILJwJ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com">CentralILJwJ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com</A><BR><BR><*>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR> <A
href="mailto:CentralILJwJ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">CentralILJwJ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</A><BR><BR><*>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:<BR> <A
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"
target=_blank>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>