Comments

Игры для nokia 5230 темы для nokia 5230 Mp3.

Hello,

I’m sure that you’re outraged with the recent Rush Limbaugh incident, and I feel that we need to do something to fight back!! Please sign this petition: Tell Republican Leaders to Denounce Rush Limbaugh's Anti-Women Tirade:
http://www.dccc.org/pages/denounce-rush

Please forward this link to your friends!!

Stereotyping NU students as rich and esp. as belonging to the "1%" is unfounded and, really, hateful. College costs have been outstripping wages and household income for decades. The average middle-class family can't afford to pay full freight for 4 years (and often it's more) of tuition, fees, room and board, and the other associated expenses at a private college or university, and often at a public university. Yet the children of those households do apply, and are admitted, and in most cases go. The gap is filled with grants, public and private loans, work-study, and just plain scrimping and saving. Loans end up being a huge component, thus the massive debt burden many students graduate with.

At Northwestern, approximately 80% of undergrads require -- and get -- financial aid in order to attend, per collegedata.com.  On average those requiring aid are coming up $30,000 short per year. 45% of undergrads get some form of University scholarship even after all other forms of financial aid.

Similar stats would attain at most other comparable schools. Ironically, more financial aid is given out at  some of the more expensive, highly-rated schools -- because they have larger endowments, more (and more successful) alumni, and because they also have a proportion of the student body who can pay full freight. When USNews does its ratings they now also generate a "value" ranking and it turns out some very highly-ranked schools are a "deal" because they give so much aid relative to their prestige, and actually end up more affordable for a middle-class family.

Stats are funny things and of course, looking closely at the above reveals something else, namely, that about 1 in 5 NU students don't require any financial aid. With current total costs in excess of $55,000 per year, and the average American family as we know having almost nothing in savings, it is clear that the NU student body, peppered with 1 in 5 whose family can afford the equivalent of driving a Porsche off a cliff each year,  is not reflective of a cross-section of the population, try as they might to achieve a diverse stuent body. But that's to be expected, since, after all, a highly selective school by definition doesn't draw randomly from the population, but from high academic achievers, which cadre is for a variety of reasons not sociodemographically random., So, yeah, NU students as a whole skew better off than the country. As does Evanston -- on average. But, as with Evanston, that skew doesn't mean that all are flush. Far from it.

Selective universities, NU among them, are without question far more diverse than they were several generations ago, and overwhelmingly middle-class. Rather than ignorantly castigating students as rich, concern ought to be with the degree to which soaring costs have outstripped grant aid, and closer scrutiny ought to be directed at why that is so, because the debt burdens, cumulatively, skew career choices and pose a longterm threat to the social mobility that is a promise of the "American dream" and a key support of our political and mixed-economic system.

If you have suggestions for us about how we can help combat the GOP assault on voting rights, if you know of good articles or sources on the subject, or have a personal experience regarding voter protection to share, please share them by posting a comment (register below to post comments, or if you've done that already just click the reply button below).  We want to stay abreast of this issue, be a resource for those who want to know the latest, and provide as much help on the voter protection front as we can in 2012.  And please be sure that you join our email list so that we can keep you posted about our voter protection actions and other activities.  Thanks for your interest and your assistance!

The bill does technically allow for student ID, but no schools in the state issue any meeting the requirements.  And the requirements for obtaining the state-issued ID, even aside from the cost (and note that a state official who tried to promote that IDs could be obtained free was recently fired) have so many Catch-22 aburditities that the bill might be comical if the implications weren't so alarming.  In order to apply for the state-issued ID, you must produce (among various other documents) proof of identity -- and what are acceptable documents to prove that?  A drivers' license, a state ID, or various other forms of ID that you are not likely to have -- or if you did you wouldn't need the card in the first place.  No wonder the non-partisan PoliticFact rated WI's new law the most restrctive in the nation.

PauloB--You are right. I changed my piece above to reflect your point that all Wisconsin voters must now show a state-issued ID. The Rolling Stone piece I cited was suggesting that this disproportionately target students, whose university-issued IDs do not included all the information required to vote. Hope it's clearer now!

I though that the brand new voting law in Wisconsin that requires an identification card issued by the state of bureau applies for all residents? I read this here: Free voter ID very difficult to obtain for some in Wisconsin.

The Wisconsin law, which cost $7 million to implement, is currently in effect. Numerous different organizations have said they will file suit against the case, but none have done so yet. State-issued ID cards for purposes of voting are supposed to be totally free, but state officials are making it hard to get that free registration card.

I agree with much of what Michael, Lisa, and Ginny (by implication, since Ginny mainly cites others, and poses a question to start a conversation, for which she deserves props) say. But it's important to recognize the contradictions and tensions we face here.

I think the "deal" stinks. As in rotten, putrid, odious, and whatever other ingredients make something stinky. For most of the reasons others have said, not least of which is the charge of manufactured crisis á la "shock doctrine," although I'll also add that it's anti-American. Not just un-American, in creating an unaccountable "super-committee" not contemplated by the Constitution, but anti-American, in that such a committee by definition will severely limit access by ordinary Americans and will mainly answer to the most entrenched and powerful lobbies. While removing the ability of voters in most districts to hold their representatives accountable at election time. Everyone gets to shrug and say "Hey, it wasn't me, it was those others" -- a more blatant version of what occurs anyway in a state of perpetual partisan war.

The real contradiction is that, like the budget deal, this was enacted by -- and could not have been enacted without -- a Democratic White House and a Democratic Senate. Half the Democrats in the House voted for it -- GOP votes weren't enough. The suggestion that a faction of a faction "made us do it" doesn't cut it.

I also don't think there's been enough discussion of the overall market impacts. The process leading to the deal leads to enormous business uncertainty because, now, no one can plan on the future. It is clear that lunacy can get its way on Capitol Hill, thus nothing is certain, everything is in play. It's impossible to plan based on, say, any investment tax credit. So the cash sitting on the sidelines will stay there, or, more accurately, get used to make the big bigger, in yet more consolidation (which leads to more layoffs).

Michael at the end of his post calls the deal a "loss" but more correctly in his opening calls it a "capitulation." Lisa says "Obama can only do so much." That's not enough of a campaign banner to expect rank and file Democrats to carry into battle on behalf of "capitulators." While Lisa says "the alternative is unthinkable," and that has been the type of reasoning that the national Party is counting on, how different is the "alternative" when "our guys" give them 98% of what they wanted? Is it realistic to expect volunteers to spend the next 16 months of their lives fighting over the 2% difference?

The weekend before the "deal" went down, I saw James Carville on TV smirking that the Democrats would "win" on this by passing the deal, letting the President sign it, and then campaigning against it. About the dumbest thing I've ever heard him say, but maybe the best he could spin. When the Democrats do things like extend the Bush tax cuts, or pass and sign this draconian solution to a crisis they acknowledge is manufactured, they forfeit the ability to use that as a campaign differentiator.

The tension I feel is this: if we respond to the "deal" by going all out, whether in Illinois, Wisconsin, or wherever, doesn't it just demonstrate that there is no limit to which progressives can be abused and ignored by their own Party and President, because we will still come out not just to vote, but to fight against those nasty Republicans? Maybe we will. See vastleft.com's cartoon:

But I believe that some, at some point, will choose to walk away from an abusive relationship, will draw a line in the sand on one or more issues -- whether it's perpetual war, endless Guantanamo, eroding privacy, bigger banks, new Arctic drilling and tar sands pipelines, or raising the Social Security retirement age -- and say "I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more."

Would that, at least temporarily, give the Republicans more power? No doubt. SO, ultimately, it's a good question, which aspect of the debt "deal" is worse: the policy, or the politics.

Sisters and brothers,

The debt deal was a capitulation to the worst of the right wing. It provides substantial cuts with no revenue increases, and promises more cuts in the future if there isn't the political will to create new sources of revenue. In the words of Representative Raul M. Grijalva, "this deal does not even attempt to strike a balance between more cuts for the working people of America and a fairer contribution from millionaires and corporations. The very wealthy will continue to receive taxpayer handouts, and corporations will keep their expensive federal giveaways. Meanwhile, millions of families unfairly lose more in this deal than they have already lost."

The debt ceiling is an arbitrary limit, and the reactionary right turned this arbitrary limit into a manufactured crisis and used it to push through cuts the right wing has sought for years.

In spite of the self-righteous rhetoric, the right wing is not the least bit concerned about the financial health of the country. If they were, they would push for things like progressive taxation, investments in infrastructure, and job creation programs. Besides, even if the debt ceiling were raised without the draconian cuts, the United States would still be the best bet in town for investors looking for security.

The president could have avoided this whole fiasco by raising the debt ceiling in December 2010 when the Democrats still controlled the House. He didn't. As a Plan B, he could have fallen back on the 14th Amendment to raise the debt limit. He didn't do that either. Instead, he chose to cave to the right.

So, now, we have a deal that asks nothing of the wealthy, hurts the most vulnerable, and is guaranteed to further damage our fragile economy because what ails our economy is not too much spending but too few jobs. As a result, it is absolutely incredible to hear the president talk about how this deal will help the economy. If he were a savvier political player, he'd be honest about the likely impact of the deal and pin the blame on the reactionary right. But he never seems to learn.

But, sisters and brothers, as horrible as this deal is, it is only a symptom of a more serious problem we face as a country -- the loss of democracy itself.

I say this because we cannot have a democratic society and have the vast disparity in wealth we have in this country, especially the massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of a very few.

The problem with such economic disparity is not that the masses of people are jealous of the wealthy or that wealthy people are evil or other such nonsense. The problem is that vast economic disparity has a warping effect on the democratic process because wealth, like a magnetic force field, attracts political power and influence. We see the evidence of this warping all around us, everyday.

So this debt deal is just another battle lost by democracy in a long class war that is being waged by the oligarchs and plutocrats.

So, sisters and brothers, as we continue our fight for social and economic justice, let us recognize that we are not only fighting for what is ethically and morally correct with regard to human needs but also for democracy itself.

In solidarity,
Michael Baker

Did Obama and Congress to the best they could under the circumstances? No. Obama's best quality also turns out to be his worst in the current political environment. He tried to negotiate in good faith with the GOP, and thanks to their mindless support of the Tea Party, the economy will be struggling past election day. Brilliant.

It's time for us to start treating the GOP for what it is -- a corrupt party that's now fronted by ignorant thugs who keep their racism and sexism barely under the surface. They're a mob, not a political faction. The GOP's refusal to properly support continued economic stimulus in the early months after the 2008 crash all but guaranteed the continuation of the recession we're feeling today. The Tea Party has now all but guaranteed we'll stay in this economic trough past the election -- who knows, maybe for the next 3-5 years.

That said, Obama can only do so much. Illinois voters need to wake up and launch a steady attack on all state and local Republicans through 2012. That means phone calls, emails, letters to the editor, volunteer work and most of all, voter registration to get our numbers at the polls as high as we possibly can.

We can be unhappy with Obama, but we can't abandon him. The alternative is unthinkable. We're not fighting a conventional political party anymore. We're fighting a rabble, and as Joe Nocera put it in his column in today's New York Times, "You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them."

Strength in numbers. That's the only way we're going to turn this around.

I just watched the 2009 documentary, "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers". 

For someone who experienced the Viet Nam debacle as a young adult, it brought back awful memories of a war that never seemed to end.  Unlike today's American wars, Viet Nam was on the news every night--the body count, the body bags, the generals and presidents saying 'we are winning the war'.

It is so relevant for today as we are once again being lied to about a war that never seems to end.  Viet Nam was a pit and Afghanistan is a pit.  Again, Uncle Sam is working harder to save a country than the 'government ' we support.  This war is not winnable and is a drain on our military and the finances of the US. 

As was asked 40+ years ago, who is going to be the last American soldier killed before we pull out, how many more are going to be killed before we pull out?  How many more Afghanistan civilians will we kill before we pull out?

We need to tell President Obama to get out long before 2014!

Watch the movie.

Joanne Zolomij

As one exceptional campaigner put it not too long ago, words matter. Words have power to change the conversation, how we think about an issue, to alter the outcome of a debate. In fact, words are the currency of a debate. Here, the words and actions of not just Jan Schakowsky but Speaker Pelosi and the other legislators drawing a line in the stand on the tax cut "compromise" deal are of real importance -- and they have been necessary words, and the right actions.

The resolve being shown is an extraordinary signal, because these words are coming from some who have been the President's strongest supporters. No one welcomes an in-house squabble, and too often Democrats, when circling the wagons, point the guns inward. But a friend is more than someone who will always give you strokes. A true friend is one who not only wants you to succeed, but who will be honest with you when they think you are wrong. Or when you have spinach stuck in your teeth. And, ultimately, a representative has to put the interests of the people first.

Jan Schakowsky's interview on The Daily Rundown, which aired even before the House "rebellion" and hasn't gotten as much airplay as the Charlie Rose interview, showed political skill and and took just the right tone. Put on the spot by NBC White House correspondent Savannah Guthrie, our congresswoman was kind in describing her reaction to the President's lecturing of the left, and diplomatically refused to commit to supporting the "compromise" even if it came to a take-it-or-leave-it vote. Also, she used the on-air opportunity, as on Rose's show, to make a point about what I call the issue of extreme inequality.

Raising the issue of what has happened to this country's economy, in terms of the massive redistribution of wealth and income over the past 25-30 years, is long overdue and is important for far more reasons than one online comment can address. The threat to democracy that Jan correctly identifies is a huge reason. So is dismantling the false narrative that programs for the poor, or low-income homebuyers, are to blame for the middle class's struggles. I would also term extreme inequality not just a threat to our economy, but to our security.

Not coincidentally, Bob Creamer has also recently raised this issue in a catchy-titled HuffPo piece that's worth a read.

One could argue over whether or not the estate tax is the most offensive aspect of the "compromise." Robert Reich found the deal to have almost no redeeming value, so there is plenty not to like. The $5 million estate tax trigger is a higher threshhold than most expected, but let's remember that wealth in an estate has usually already gone through one round of income taxation; an estate tax represents government's second bite at the apple. As a tool of policy I am comfortable with incentivizing gifting, but less comfortable with a confiscatory motive. In particular, those opposed to the conversion of family farms into corporate tracts and subdivision sprawl need to recognize that not all estates should be targets.

I am more offended by the fact that the "carried interest" loophole, which lets some of the hedge fund captains who helped steer the economy into an iceberg pay lower rates than you or I, is untouched in the "compromise." And all Americans should be deeply concerned by the threat to Social Security lurking in this bill.

The "compromise" needs more than tweaking. As written, this is not just a deal that is "not perfect" -- it's a bad bill. Jan Schakowsky deserves props for taking a lead on this, and constituents should let her know that we have her back.

Whatever the deterrents, Samantha Reed, who is a Board Member of the Democratic Party of Evanston, is doing her part to make sure young people register and have their voices heard on election day.  Check out this recent story in the Daily Northwestern, featuring the great work Samantha is doing.  What's so terrific about Samantha is that, like many of us, she's thinking hard about the the challenges we're facing -- her post above is evidence of that -- but doesn't let that get in the way of doing the work it takes to move things forward.  Thanks, Samantha.  We're grateful.

All excellent points, Samantha. I agree that there are undoubtedly cultural factors that impact enthusiasm among young voters, and I admire your efforts to understand and influence those factors.  I guess I (perhaps wrongly) still consider myself a young person -- I'm 26 -- so I thought I was writing from the perspective of a young voter rather than an outsider (the nagging mom in your analogy). 

The "shame" that I was trying to describe is the reality that while young people continue to wait to discover (our?) political agency, we are consistently and chronically underrepresented in the development of policy.  As you know, governmental approaches to the environment, education policy, healthcare, and social security (among many others) will impact us in ways that differ dramatically from older voters.  For the most part, young people have not clamored for a voice in these policy debates, even when -- as with the student aid issue -- the effects are direct and immediate.  

In a representative system, voting is one of the best ways to demonstrate that young people are a political force to be taken seriously.

I had hoped that the 2008 election represented a breakthrough for young voters, and the strong support students showed for President Obama has, in fact, translated into concrete policies that benefit young people.  Dampened enthusiasm in 2010 -- whatever its cause --is a tragedy for the youth movement to the extent that it reinforces the message that candidates and policy makers can afford to ignore the youth vote.

This posting points out probably the most glaring difference between the parties.  A party for the people, and a party for corporations and the special interests that come with them.  As someone who is still paying (and will be for a very long time) student loans, I can say with certainty that I would have benefited directly from these changes.  61 Billion dollars over a relatively short amount of time is amazing, and something that should be yelled from very TV spot and radio ad out there. 

 Ms. Reed brings up a really great point as well regarding young people and their vote.  While major attack ads are something that have been around for years and work to some extent to a certain demographic, I think young people are turned off from them.  While not that young anymore, I still consider myself to be young (at heart) and H.S. kids and college kids don’t care a lot about superficial issues that will never be brought up again after the election cycle. There may not be another candidate like Obama for a very long time that generates so much excitement among young voters, so candidates like Alexi need to be creative in their approach to generate the buzz that will resonate over the attack ads.  Most young voters don’t care that Kirk lied about his Military service, they care that they won’t pay extremely high interest rates on their student loans, and Alexi could be a strong advocate in Washington to help make sure that law stays in place.  Let people know that Kirk lied, sure, but also be positive, and let everyone know you are for Main St., not Wall St. 

As a senior at Northwestern who spent most of my first year and a half as a college student working on Barack Obama's campaign, I have definitely seen and experienced the power young people have to shape an election.  Not only did college students vote in record numbers in 2008, they also spent their evenings and weekends making phone calls and knocking on doors.  They weren’t asked just for their vote; they were asked to become part of a movement.  The Obama campaign was so successful because, to put it plainly, it was the cool thing to do.

In 2008, a non-partisan group of Northwestern students formed a group they called NU Decides.  NU Decides did an amazing job registering students to vote on campus (and they even did some interesting research and evaluation of their project).  And again, not only was the group successful in getting a lot of students to register, but they were also successful in recruiting volunteers to help staff voter registration tables, database information, etc. 

Over the past year, some of the same students and I have been working on a project to increase access to voter registration and voting information on campus in a sustainable way (ie, one that doesn’t rely solely on the enthusiasm of student volunteers) because we knew that, realistically, there would be few election cycles in the future that excited and inspired students to action as much as the Obama candidacy had.  In the short term, however, we have rekindled the NU Decides model and have had voter registration tables at various locations on campus for the past few weeks.

We have been fairly successful (over 250 registrations so far), but I have to be honest that the excitement that was there in 2008 is not there this year, in registrants or volunteers.  Voting just isn’t that cool this year.

So how do we make voting something that young people recognize as important, regardless of how cool the candidates or campaigns are?  Unfortunately, I don’t think that detailing specific policies that affect students is very effective.  Listing reasons why this election is important and telling young people they should pay attention and vote isn’t that appealing.  It’s like having your mom tell you why you should clean your room and listing the potential consequences of choosing to not clean.  In the end, the only thing that will get you to clean your room is knowing your friends are coming over.

I think what really needs to happen if we want young people to continue to be engaged in the political process is a major change in the attitudes of campaigns and in the candidates themselves.  We need more young people involved in campaigns, focusing on reaching out to other young people.  We need candidates who we can relate to, who are young and energetic and break down our preconceived notions about politics and politicians.  We need candidates and campaigns that want more than our vote. 

I go to Roosevelt University, which is a school that has a wide range of students from every socio-economic background. The diversity of Roosevelt is one of the reasons why I love it but it also means that many students struggle to pay the rising cost of tuition. Last year, Pat Quinn stood with Roosevelt activists to support Map grant funding. Quinn clearly has the futures of students (from all walks of life) in mind.

You still have time to register to vote in the upcoming midterm elections, but you have to hurry.  The deadline to register is Tuesday, October 5th.  

To register in Evanston, visit the Clerk's office in Room 1200 of the Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Ave., Evanston.  The office is open Monday through Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.  You will need a picture I.D. and something showing your current name and address (utility bill, bank statement, lease, etc.). If you currently live in Evanston, it does not matter whether your parents' address is somewhere else. The only requirements to register are that (1) you must be a United States citizen and (2) you must 18 years of age or older by the next election. 

There are also some additional options for Northwestern students.  Between now and Oct. 5th, NU students may register to vote at the Center for Civic Engagement, located at 1813 Hinman Avenue--next to Admissions.  The Center is also running Voter Outreach Tables today at the following campus locations:

* Tech Building (table out front)
 Friday (10/1) - 9:30 am - 12 noon

* Norris Center (ground floor)
 Friday (10/1) - 11 am - 2 pm

The outcome of this election will depend on you!  Register this week!

I do not feel that I pay my fair share of state taxes.  That is because I am a federal government retiree, and federal, state, and local government pension income is not taxed by the State of Illinois.  (This is true even for retirees under the age of 65.)  I do not see why the State could not institute a tax on these pensions –  preferably, of course, a fair one, not applicable to those below a certain income level.  I understand that this might be a difficult step politically because of the older constituency involved, but I am sure there must be others like me who, while not at all wealthy, are fairly comfortable, and feel that they should be contributing more to the state coffers, especially in these difficult times..   

I call for my fellow DPOE members to call for an affirmative vote by the DPOE Board at its next meeting.
Ted L. Loda
DPOE Board Member

Senator Art Berman sent us this message, which he authorized to post here as a comment:

I compliment DPOE on pushing HB 174. Illinois is one of the lowest taxing states and with the recession, without increased revenues our neediest citizens will be terribly hurt, including school children throughout Illinois. HB 174 must be passed.

Retired Senator Art  Berman

I'm only interested in supporting an income tax increase if the Democratic Party of IL agrees to address pension reform for all CURRENT public employees of IL.  If this requires a challenge in the courts, so be it. 

We cannot cast blame for the current budget crisis on anyone but ourselves, the Democrats of IL.  Without a crisis, we can expect business as usual in Springfield.  Hopefully, this crisis will help our representatives find the courage to act with integrity and fix the problems underlying our current financial disaster.  Yes, a low State income tax is one of those reforms.  But the bigger issue is the unsustainable pension plans for public employees, as they are currently structured.  We need wholesale reform in this area, if we are to address our financial mess.  It's easy to say that revenues raised by HB174 will address problems with education, health and safety issues, but the truth of the matter is that those funds will have to be diverted to pension fund commitments.  The current pension system is unfair and unsustainable.  It's time for us to demand that our elected representatives act courageously.  When pension reform has been embraced, then I can support HB174, knowing that it will be able to address the funding deficits for the most important functions of our State government.