Shelter reveals that families are being priced out of the ‘out-of-control’ rental market in 55% of English local authorities Families have been priced out of rental property in the majority of local authorities in England, according to the homeless charity Shelter . The Shelter Rent Watch found that average private rents were unaffordable for ordinary working families in 55% of local authorities in England. Typical rents charged by private landlords were more than a third of median take-home pay, the widely accepted measure of affordability. Shelter said research showed that 38% of families with children who were renting privately had cut down on food to pay their rent. Although renting has traditionally been regarded as a cheaper alternative to home ownership, the credit crunch and high house prices have forced many potential homebuyers to remain as tenants. At the same time, growing numbers of people who would normally qualify for social housing have been pushed into the private sector by an acute shortage of local authority and housing association property. The number of tenants renting privately has increased by nearly one million in the past five years. The increased demand has pushed up rents , particularly in London boroughs, which are the most expensive in England. At £1,360, an average rent for a two-bedroom home in the capital is almost two-and-a-half times the average in the rest of the country (£568). The least affordable local authority area outside London is Oxford, where typical rents account for 55% of average earnings. Tenants on benefits in these areas are already having problems finding properties to rent within the new local housing allowance limits , implemented in April for new tenants and from the beginning of next year for those in existing tenancies. Shelter said tenants in many rural areas were also bearing the brunt of high rents and low earnings. It found it is cheaper to rent in Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham than in north Devon, north Dorset or Herefordshire. In Yorkshire, properties in Bradford and Sheffield are more affordable to rent than in the rural areas of Ryedale and Richmondshire. Shelter’s analysis showed that in England 8% of local authorities were extremely unaffordable to rent in, with a median rent of 50% or more of median full-time take-home pay; 21% were very unaffordable with a median rent equivalent of 40% to 49% of median full-time take-home pay; and 29% were fairly unaffordable with the median rent equivalent to 35% to 39% of the median full-time take-home pay. Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter, said: “With huge differences in affordability across the country, there are now worrying signs that families are likely to be displaced by our out-of-control rental market. “We have become depressingly familiar with first-time buyers being priced out of the housing market, but the impact of unaffordable rents is more dramatic. With no cheaper alternative, ordinary people are forced to cut their spending on essentials like food and heating, or uproot and move away from jobs, schools and families.” Robb said it was time for the government to urgently consider how private renting could become a stable, affordable option for families “and not a heavy financial burden that makes parents choose between buying food for their children and paying the rent.” Alice Barnard, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance , said the lack of affordable housing to rent or buy was one of the most pressing issues facing rural communities. “The countryside has seen its population grow at twice the rate of urban areas, which has driven up prices, forcing families to make sacrifices to meet spiralling rental costs and pricing young families out of the communities in which they have grown up,” she said. “If we want our rural communities to flourish then the government needs to urgently review the rental market in rural areas to enable rural communities to meet their housing needs.” Melissa Brown, a part-time yoga teacher, and her husband David*, a college lecturer, found it impossible to rent a decent affordable property when their landlord decided to sell their existing home. The couple, who live in Brighton with their three children, had been renting a three-bedroom terrace house for £1,250 a month for two-and-a-half years but last January were told they had to move out because the landlord wanted to sell up. It took them six months to find somewhere that was still close enough to their children’s school and they ended up moving in September into a three-bedroom house for £1,550 a month. The house is in a poor state of repair with damp and needs decorating and other work, but Melissa said that most of the properties they looked at was “eye-wateringly bad”. “Most of the rented houses around here are not suitable for families because the lounges have been turned into bedrooms so landlords can put students in there and make more money. Even groups of professionals are living in shared houses with no lounge,” she said. “We’ve been renting for years and it’s never been as bad as this. It’s all driven by greed.” She added: “We did ask about repairs to this house and the landlord is paying for paint, but she has been told she could rent the house out to students for £1,650 a month and already thinks she’s doing us a favour.” Their couple’s household income is about £2,000 a month and they are already really struggling to make ends meet. The family is planning to use the loft area as an extra bedroom for a lodger to raise money. Melissa said: “The landlord doesn’t mind how we raise the rent, so we are considering becoming landlords ourselves. If you can’t beat them join them.” *The names have been changed in this case study Renting property Property First-time buyers House prices Housing Housing benefit Jill Insley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Defence secretary’s allies describe Adam Werritty as a Walter Mitty figure who had exaggerated his connections The battle to keep Liam Fox in office is in disarray as allies of the defence secretary began to distance themselves from his close friend Adam Werritty, describing him as a Walter Mitty figure who had exaggerated his connections as Fox’s adviser. It is understood that the briefings were not sanctioned by Fox or Downing Street, and were regarded as unhelpful to the embattled defence secretary. The cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, is now due to decide in days rather than weeks how serious he regards Fox’s apparent multiple breaches of the ministerial code. Fox’s cause is regarded as terminal if it is shown he knew Werritty was being paid by defence-related interests. It is understood that Werritty claims that his work, including his multiple global trips, was funded by ideologically sympathetic philanthropists, without any direct connection to specific defence contracts. Some of them were introduced to Werritty by Fox. Senior figures in the Ministry of Defence said Fox’s chances of survival were 50-50. “If he goes, it will not be because of security leaks or his private life. It will be due to money.” The initial attempt to denigrate Werritty by describing him as a fantasist is in part an attempt to argue that Fox neither knew nor condoned the extent to which Werritty was claiming he worked for Fox. “Essentially, he was masquerading as something he was not, ” said one official. “He [Werritty] shouldn’t have been acting that way. Liam has told him to tell the truth and not to hide anything.” The Guardian understands that Werritty has admitted to the inquiry that he may have unintentionally misled some of his business associates about the role he played with Fox, allowing them to form the impression he was an official aide. Werritty was interviewed on Tuesday by the Cabinet Office’s director of propriety and ethics, Sue Gray, who has asked him to provide documents setting out his business arrangements. The inquiry has been told Werritty was being funded by ideological allies of Fox, both in the UK and the US. One senior Whitehall official told the Guardian it was “inconceivable” that the defence secretary did not know that his friend was passing himself off as his unofficial envoy. Fox also continued to see Werritty even after he had reprimanded him for using a business card declaring he was an adviser to Fox, a fact that Fox did not tell his permanent secretary, Ursula Brennan, until she read it in a Guardian article. A few days later Fox and his wife still went on holiday to Spain with Werritty. It is also unlikely that Fox would have allowed “a Walter Mitty figure” to sit alongside him when he sat down for a social dinner with commander designate for Nato in Afghanistan at a Steakhouse in Tampa Florida.David Cameron said at prime minister’s questions that he was waiting for the O’Donnell inquiry before deciding whether to sack Fox. “I ask people to have a little patience and wait for the facts to be established,” he said. In a separate development, Conservative headquarters insisted there had been no attempt to cover up the fact that a man was staying with Fox when his home was burgled during the 2010 election campaign. Fox had a laptop, a mobile phone and keys to a Skoda taken, and the Skoda was driven away. At the time, journalists were told that Fox was alone, but Fox says he told the police a friend was staying with him. A Conservative spokesperson said: “As Liam Fox said last night, he told police at the time of the burglary that a friend was staying in his guest room, and that he does not know why the media were given the impression he was alone. We have looked into how incorrect information was briefed out. We have established that it was released in good faith and that it was the result of a genuine misunderstanding.” Friends of Fox, such as Chris Grayling, the employment minister, under pressure from the media, stressed that Fox was a “happily married” man. Grayling said: “If you look around the Westminster village, you will find all kinds of wild gossip about all kinds of individuals in all parties. That doesn’t mean they are not good at their jobs. I’ve known Liam for many years, I’ve known Liam and his wife, they’ve always struck me as being a very happily married couple. The reality is that the gossip is certainly circulating. “I thought we had got past the point in politics though where we needed to worry about people’s private lives. The question is, is somebody doing an important and capable job?” Liam Fox and Adam Werritty links Liam Fox Adam Werritty Ministry of Defence Defence policy Patrick Wintour Nick Hopkins Rupert Neate guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Defence secretary’s allies describe Adam Werritty as a Walter Mitty figure who had exaggerated his connections The battle to keep Liam Fox in office is in disarray as allies of the defence secretary began to distance themselves from his close friend Adam Werritty, describing him as a Walter Mitty figure who had exaggerated his connections as Fox’s adviser. It is understood that the briefings were not sanctioned by Fox or Downing Street, and were regarded as unhelpful to the embattled defence secretary. The cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, is now due to decide in days rather than weeks how serious he regards Fox’s apparent multiple breaches of the ministerial code. Fox’s cause is regarded as terminal if it is shown he knew Werritty was being paid by defence-related interests. It is understood that Werritty claims that his work, including his multiple global trips, was funded by ideologically sympathetic philanthropists, without any direct connection to specific defence contracts. Some of them were introduced to Werritty by Fox. Senior figures in the Ministry of Defence said Fox’s chances of survival were 50-50. “If he goes, it will not be because of security leaks or his private life. It will be due to money.” The initial attempt to denigrate Werritty by describing him as a fantasist is in part an attempt to argue that Fox neither knew nor condoned the extent to which Werritty was claiming he worked for Fox. “Essentially, he was masquerading as something he was not, ” said one official. “He [Werritty] shouldn’t have been acting that way. Liam has told him to tell the truth and not to hide anything.” The Guardian understands that Werritty has admitted to the inquiry that he may have unintentionally misled some of his business associates about the role he played with Fox, allowing them to form the impression he was an official aide. Werritty was interviewed on Tuesday by the Cabinet Office’s director of propriety and ethics, Sue Gray, who has asked him to provide documents setting out his business arrangements. The inquiry has been told Werritty was being funded by ideological allies of Fox, both in the UK and the US. One senior Whitehall official told the Guardian it was “inconceivable” that the defence secretary did not know that his friend was passing himself off as his unofficial envoy. Fox also continued to see Werritty even after he had reprimanded him for using a business card declaring he was an adviser to Fox, a fact that Fox did not tell his permanent secretary, Ursula Brennan, until she read it in a Guardian article. A few days later Fox and his wife still went on holiday to Spain with Werritty. It is also unlikely that Fox would have allowed “a Walter Mitty figure” to sit alongside him when he sat down for a social dinner with commander designate for Nato in Afghanistan at a Steakhouse in Tampa Florida.David Cameron said at prime minister’s questions that he was waiting for the O’Donnell inquiry before deciding whether to sack Fox. “I ask people to have a little patience and wait for the facts to be established,” he said. In a separate development, Conservative headquarters insisted there had been no attempt to cover up the fact that a man was staying with Fox when his home was burgled during the 2010 election campaign. Fox had a laptop, a mobile phone and keys to a Skoda taken, and the Skoda was driven away. At the time, journalists were told that Fox was alone, but Fox says he told the police a friend was staying with him. A Conservative spokesperson said: “As Liam Fox said last night, he told police at the time of the burglary that a friend was staying in his guest room, and that he does not know why the media were given the impression he was alone. We have looked into how incorrect information was briefed out. We have established that it was released in good faith and that it was the result of a genuine misunderstanding.” Friends of Fox, such as Chris Grayling, the employment minister, under pressure from the media, stressed that Fox was a “happily married” man. Grayling said: “If you look around the Westminster village, you will find all kinds of wild gossip about all kinds of individuals in all parties. That doesn’t mean they are not good at their jobs. I’ve known Liam for many years, I’ve known Liam and his wife, they’ve always struck me as being a very happily married couple. The reality is that the gossip is certainly circulating. “I thought we had got past the point in politics though where we needed to worry about people’s private lives. The question is, is somebody doing an important and capable job?” Liam Fox and Adam Werritty links Liam Fox Adam Werritty Ministry of Defence Defence policy Patrick Wintour Nick Hopkins Rupert Neate guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As the people of Kansas begin to feel the pain of living in Brownbackistan , it was only a matter of time before they decided to join the Occupy Together movement. AP radio news reported today that the Occupy Wall Street protests had spread to “a few other cities” – if you count 1,340 cities to be a”few.” There have been Occupy Together protests in Kansas City and Lawrence, Kansas as shown above. Contrary to the reporting of the corporate media, there is a coherent, focused message : LAWRENCE — On Saturday about 150 attended an “Occupy Lawrence” rally in front of the U.S. Bank building on Massachusetts Avenue in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York. Melissa from #OccupyLawrence read the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City adopted also by the Lawrence General Assembly. The prolog to that document reads: As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies. Steve Robinson from #OccupyLawrence said he started the local web page about the event since “America is broken economically and politically and the people need to fix it.” Gretchen Alvarez, Lawrence, said her attention-grabbing sign, “The Hand of the Free Market Touched Me in a Bad Place!”, was about her 401(k) retirement savings being “raped” by events on Wall Street. Their numbers were small, but mighty and right there in the Koch Brothers’ home state no less! Not that they’d notice, mind you, but as the Occupy Together movement continues to grow and spread to cities and towns both large and small, eventually they will have no choice but to sit up and take notice.
Continue reading …As the people of Kansas begin to feel the pain of living in Brownbackistan , it was only a matter of time before they decided to join the Occupy Together movement. AP radio news reported today that the Occupy Wall Street protests had spread to “a few other cities” – if you count 1,340 cities to be a”few.” There have been Occupy Together protests in Kansas City and Lawrence, Kansas as shown above. Contrary to the reporting of the corporate media, there is a coherent, focused message : LAWRENCE — On Saturday about 150 attended an “Occupy Lawrence” rally in front of the U.S. Bank building on Massachusetts Avenue in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York. Melissa from #OccupyLawrence read the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City adopted also by the Lawrence General Assembly. The prolog to that document reads: As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies. Steve Robinson from #OccupyLawrence said he started the local web page about the event since “America is broken economically and politically and the people need to fix it.” Gretchen Alvarez, Lawrence, said her attention-grabbing sign, “The Hand of the Free Market Touched Me in a Bad Place!”, was about her 401(k) retirement savings being “raped” by events on Wall Street. Their numbers were small, but mighty and right there in the Koch Brothers’ home state no less! Not that they’d notice, mind you, but as the Occupy Together movement continues to grow and spread to cities and towns both large and small, eventually they will have no choice but to sit up and take notice.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Another Republican debate is over, and we still have no more answers than we did the day before. Okay, we know what they don’t want and don’t like: Anything to do with Barack Obama’s health care plan, financial regulation, no matter how mild, and taxing the rich. We get that. But what is it they do want to do to deal with this jobs crisis? Michele Bachmann has a nearly-unintelligible jobs plan that she just “unveiled” on her website. Here’s her summary: “My solutions are simple. We need to cut government spending, legalize America’s God-given natural resources, and stop taxing investment and productivity,” Bachmann said. “In other words, we need to do what growing economies do.” I’ll leave it to you, dear readers, to parse certain phrases like “legalize…God-given natural resources”. Whatever. After all, this is the woman who told a guy with no teeth, or at least, very few teeth, that he should rely on charity for his dental care . At some point in Tuesday night’s debate, there was an attempt on the part of the moderators to pin Mitt Romney down on the looming crisis in the Eurozone; specifically, Greece, and get him to articulate what his plan would be for what is happening there. It’s an important question, and one every single one of these so-called candidates ought to answer. The clip is at the top. Here’s a piece of the transcript : GOLDMAN: Thank you. Governor Romney, it’s 2013, and the European debt crisis has worsened. Countries are defaulting. Europe’s largest banks are on the verge of bankruptcy. Contagion has spread to the U.S. And the global financial system is on the brink. What would you do differently than what President Bush, Henry Paulson, and Ben Bernanke did in 2008? ROMNEY: Well, you’re talking about a scenario that’s obviously very difficult to imagine. And — GOLDMAN: But it’s not a hypothetical, because more than half — ROMNEY: It is. I’m afraid it is a hypothetical. GOLDMAN: Governor, it’s not — ROMNEY: Do you want to explain why it’s not a hypothetical? GOLDMAN: Yes. ROMNEY: OK. GOLDMAN: Because more than half the country believes that a financial meltdown is likely in the next several years, and the U.S. banks have at least $700 billion in exposure to Europe. So it’s a very real threat, and voters want to know what you would do differently. ROMNEY: It’s still a hypothetical as to what’s going to precisely happen in the future. I’m not very good at being omniscient, but I can tell you this, that I am not going to have to call up Timothy Geithner and say, how does the economy work? Because I spent my life in the economy. Click here to view this media Of course, he didn’t answer the question, which led the Bloomberg panel to gnaw on their frustration that they asked a real-life question and got a bunch of “hypothetical” bluster in return. Here’s a rough transcript of that exchange: You know, one of the things that I really believe this debate showed — you really got a glimpse into a number of candidates — how they articulate their economic policies. I thought it was particularly interesting with governor rick perry. He kept coming back to energy policy. Energy is the way to create jobs. One thing it did not seem like any of them could really necessarily address is how to create jobs immediately. That was one of the reasons we had to come back at the end and ask them to address exactly what is going to happen now that the president was a jobs bill has been stalled. We begin the debate by talking about dysfunction. Where does that leave us? We are still in gridlock. > > The only thing I saw was this or hypothetical. I believe that one point he said the word hypothetical four times. What was it like to have a hypothetical moments with governor mitt romney? > > I don’t think it was a hypothetical moment. That is how he posed the question to him. We know we talked about this issue every hour of every day on bloomberg television. The stress of contagion from europe is very real. It is something that any of these presidential candidates, should they win, is going to have to deal with. All of that leads me to the questions I wish they’d ask these candidates, but never do. Here’s a partial list of mine. Given that they have the benefit of hindsight and can certainly point and sneer at what President Obama did (or didn’t) do, they should have to be quite specific about what they would have done at that time, with the constraints they had . Not broad, sweeping declarations, but very, very specific steps. What specific steps would you have taken in early 2009 to stop jobs from bleeding away and keep the economy from collapsing into a full-blown depression? If you were President today, dealing with a shaky economy, a divided Congress, and people in the streets protesting the lack of jobs, stability or hope, what would you do to jump-start job creation? Remember the part about the divided Congress, please. You must guide your legislation through two houses of Congress, each controlled by different parties. If you were President in early 2009 and were faced with the collapse of the auto industry in this country following massive bank failures when you allowed them to fail and the markets to sort themselves out, what would you have done to prevent the economy from toppling altogether? Be specific, including how you would handle the hundreds of thousands of job losses and failures of small businesses which rely upon the auto industry, including dealerships, parts dealers, parts manufacturers and other related industries. It’s 2011, and the national debt has tripled in the last ten years, partly due to the economy and partly due to the failure of banks, the auto industry, and related manufacturing businesses tied to that industry. You’re facing a crucial debt ceiling vote which is being opposed by the far right wing of your own party , which also controls the House of Representatives. What would you have done to placate those members who opposed raising the debt ceiling at all, and how would you have negotiated a deal to get US debt under control in the future, while dealing with an unemployment rate of 17% due to all of the bank failures and related business failures mentioned before. Those are a start. I can think of dozens more, like whether they really believe people should rely on charity when they’ve lost their job, their retirements and their homes. Whether they really believe college students should come out of school with debt the size of a mortgage. Lots more. But I’ll start with these. And I want specifics. How about you?
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie announced last week that he wasn’t running for the Republican nomination, but he could still end up in the White House in 2012 if Mitt Romney is the nominee. In an interview aired Wednesday, Romney told NBC’s Jamie Gangel that Christie would be on his short list for vice presidential running mate. “Of course he would be on anyone’s short list,” Romney said. “He could take himself off the list and say no way, he’d have no interest. But the truth is that Gov. Christie is one of the leading figures in the Republican Party and of course, anyone who becomes our nominee is going to look at Gov. Christie and say, ‘That would be a terrific person to have on the ticket.’” “Do you think you would be a good match,” Gangel asked Christie. “I don’t know that I would be anybody’s good match in that regard,” Christie admitted. “But ultimately, that kind of thing is up to the person who is the presidential nominee to decide who they think is the best person for them.” At a news conference last week, Christie joked that the president might want a food taster if he were vice president.
Continue reading …Walmart Is Improving Its Environmental Policies, But Still Ignoring Worker Concerns
October 12, 2011 No CommentWalmart is proudly proclaiming its progress towards its goals to become a better company . They tout their advancements in the areas of environmental impact and support for local farmers and local food. But they still have significant problems in the treatment of their workforce and the impact their stores have on local businesses. The retailer is attempting to open a store in Burbank, Calif., and is facing opposition from local residents who fear the negative impact the story would have on the community. Walmart’s recent expansions have been less controversial because the chain has begun to open new stores in existing, vacant big box stores abandoned by other retailers suffering from the weak economy. Workers are still facing a company not interested in giving them fair wages. A recent study showed that Walmart could pay its entire workforce $12 an hour without seeing much, if any, loss of profits. Activist group Our Walmart, which is made up of employees of the company, has a list of changes it would like the company to make to improve workers rights: One of Sam Walton’s rules for building a successful business was, “Listen to everyone in your company and figure out ways to get them talking.” We are following that winning philosophy. However, too many of us do not have a true voice at our stores. Our concerns about providing the highest quality customer care and about making our jobs, quality jobs are ignored. Walmart should listen to OUR Walmart, celebrate our initiative, and follow our recommendations. We are the foundation of the quality service and value Walmart provides its customers. Walmart should honor the hard work and humanity of Associates by living up to Mr. Sam’s promise of “respect for the individual.” Associates who assert their freedom of association frequently face retribution from the company. Walmart should allow Associates to freely join OUR Walmart without fear of negative company action. Associates who have tried to utilize Walmart’s Open Door have found that their issues are not resolved and confidentiality is not respected. Walmart should ensure confidentiality in the Open Door and provide in writing resolution to issues that are brought up and always allow associates to bring a co-worker as a witness. Walmart publicly claims that pay for full-time Associates averages more than $13 per hour in some communities, when in truth most of us work for less than $10 per hour and are only scheduled for part-time hours, making it difficult to support our families. Walmart should follow through on its public statements and pay at least $13 per hour and expand the percentage of full-time workers. Our schedules are often irregular and inflexible making it difficult to care for our families. Walmart should make scheduling more predictable and dependable. Too many of us are unable to access Walmart’s health care because it is too expensive or we lack the hours to qualify. Walmart should expand health care coverage and continue to work to expand coverage when health reform goes into effect, rather than taking advantage of loopholes in the law to deny coverage. Too often Associates are faced with retaliation when speaking out about issues at work. Walmart should honor our constitutional right to freedom of speech and adhere to company policies that support dialogue and resolution. Walmart’s management often chooses to enforce written policies only when it is in their own interest, leaving Associates guessing proper protocol. Walmart should do more to ensure managers are properly trained on how to evenly and equitably enforce Walmart’s written policies at all times and to provide all Associates with a policy manual. Too many of us have been denied equal treatment. Walmart should adopt affirmative policies that secure full access to opportunity and equal treatment to all Associates regardless of gender, race, disability or age. We know our company has an impact around the globe in terms of its standards and practices. Walmart should require that suppliers and stores around the globe operate with the highest standards and ensure that workers’ freedom to associate is respected.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media While wrapping up his interview on Rachel Maddow’s show this Tuesday night, Bill Maher was asked what he thinks President Obama should do about the fact that he can’t get unanimity from Democrats in his own party to support his jobs bill that the Republicans just filibustered . Maher responded pointing out how important he believes the Occupy Wall Street movement is because the Democratic Party does indeed need something to push it and the group of Conserva-Dems that continually side with Republicans in the Senate back over to the left. MAHER: I don’t know if they can get them in line, but I would agree with you that that is one of the big problems in this country, is we understand that the Republicans are mostly bad policy makers who are trying retreaded ideas that didn’t work the first time. What’s especially disappointing is that group of Democratic Senators, you know, the Ben Nelsons, the same types, these centrist, corporatist Democrats who ally with them. You know, it’s bad enough that you need sixty votes, which is kind of a quiet coup, you know, of government, because really the Constitution says it should be fifty one, to get something done. When you add the fact that there’s fifty three Republican, I mean fifty three Democratic Senators, forty of them are pretty good, but there’s that thirteen that call themselves centrist that really wind up with the Republicans, and then of course, nothing is ever going to get done. And this is again, to come back to what we started to talk about, and why I think that Occupy Wall Street movement is so important. Because the left needs some… something to move them away from the center and toward the left. You know, we’ve tried conservatism in this country. We’ve tried centrism. We need something to make us try liberal policies.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media While wrapping up his interview on Rachel Maddow’s show this Tuesday night, Bill Maher was asked what he thinks President Obama should do about the fact that he can’t get unanimity from Democrats in his own party to support his jobs bill that the Republicans just filibustered . Maher responded pointing out how important he believes the Occupy Wall Street movement is because the Democratic Party does indeed need something to push it and the group of Conserva-Dems that continually side with Republicans in the Senate back over to the left. MAHER: I don’t know if they can get them in line, but I would agree with you that that is one of the big problems in this country, is we understand that the Republicans are mostly bad policy makers who are trying retreaded ideas that didn’t work the first time. What’s especially disappointing is that group of Democratic Senators, you know, the Ben Nelsons, the same types, these centrist, corporatist Democrats who ally with them. You know, it’s bad enough that you need sixty votes, which is kind of a quiet coup, you know, of government, because really the Constitution says it should be fifty one, to get something done. When you add the fact that there’s fifty three Republican, I mean fifty three Democratic Senators, forty of them are pretty good, but there’s that thirteen that call themselves centrist that really wind up with the Republicans, and then of course, nothing is ever going to get done. And this is again, to come back to what we started to talk about, and why I think that Occupy Wall Street movement is so important. Because the left needs some… something to move them away from the center and toward the left. You know, we’ve tried conservatism in this country. We’ve tried centrism. We need something to make us try liberal policies.
Continue reading …