One city mandates tenant responsibilities
Although fines typically are levied against the property owner, if the owner provides a lease proving the tenants are responsible for lawn upkeep, the ticket will be reissued to the tenants, Evans...
-----------------------------
Who led us into this economy? That is easily answered. The economic spiral began during Bush’s presidency. Since he was the leader when this began, the answer to your question is in fact George W. Bush.
Democrats pushing mortgages to those who could not afford them are just as much to blame as those who flooded the economy with cheap cash.
rss202
By Charlotte Iserbyt
In 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action to the financial sector. Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the Clinton administration's affirmative action lending policies as one of the "hidden success stories" of the Clinton administration, saying that "black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded."
Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the moment the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn't get out of their loans by selling their houses.
A decade later, the housing bubble burst and, as predicted, food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an affirmative action time-bomb and now it's gone off.
In Bush's first year in office, the White House chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, warned that the government's "implicit subsidy" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with loans to unqualified borrowers, was creating a huge risk for the entire financial system.
Rep. Barney Frank denounced Mankiw, saying he had no "concern about housing." How dare you oppose suicidal loans to people who can't repay them! The New York Times reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "under heavy assault by the Republicans," but these entities still had "important political allies" in the Democrats.
Now, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, middle-class taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Democrats' two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients.
Political correctness had already ruined education, sports, science and entertainment. But it took a Democratic president with a Democratic congress for political correctness to wreck the financial industry
Democrat Libs caused the financial collapse
Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt
Former Senior Policy Advisor
U.S. Department of Education
..................................................................................
And what did happen under Bush’s watch?
1. 9/11 happened while he sat and did nothing. Maybe that 2nd grade book was too interesting to him.
..................................................................................
Oh--you mean like how Obama sat and pow-wowed with some American Indians and did nothing as soldiers were murdered.
Bush remained calm and continued his program with the children for 7 minutes while his staff was ascertaining the facts.
......................................................................................
Patriot Act which took liberties guaranteed by the constitution away from American citizens.
...........................................................................................
REALLY?-What rights were taken away from you------exactly? Or, do you communicate with terrorists in other countries?
I would suggest you research what the Democrats did to American citizens during WW2.
........................................................................................................................
Invasion of Iraq, a country proven to have had nothing to do with 9/11 and proven not to have WMDs even before we went in.
............................................................................................
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
Tax breaks on the wealthiest which costs us 90 billion a year
.........................................................................................................
Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts—and the Facts
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
.......................................................................................................................
The housing bubble burst.
..............................................................................................................
How the Dems Caused the Housing Bubble
Here's a primer on the Community Reinvestment Act that explains, step by step, how the Democrats interfered in the market by forcing banks to give mortgages to people who were supremely unqualified.
The housing bubble, and the bust that followed, were not -- as Democrats whine -- caused by a lack of government regulation. To the contrary, we face an economic crisis caused by government social engineering. Democrats assumed that if we enable poor people to buy a house, then ipso facto, they have joined the middle class. Right, that notion of getting the job before the house and saving a down-payment is so conservative -- just another tool of oppression by old white guys.
The bailout was necessary to correct the market distortions caused by the government literally punishing banks who engaged in prudent lending, the kind of lending that enraged Democratic special interest groups. It was an act of courage to support the bailout to clean up the disaster that the Democrats wrought.
John McCain tried to warn us five years ago that Fannie and Freddie were out of control.
But Barack Obama -- the Senator who received the second highest amount of campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie -- failed to exercise his famous judgment on anything but advancing his own career.
DO I need to go on?
I think that I have clearly shown, that you are, in fact----------------------------DELUSIONAL.
Who was in control of congress for the last three years? Not a valid question. For the last nine months, Democrats have had the majority. That doesn’t mean they are in charge but surely have more power than Republicans. During the last two years that Bush was president, neither party had control. And even if the Democrats were able to push some things forward, they had ZERO power in overturning a Bush Veto. And let’s remember the facts; Bush vetoed one bill in the first six years when Republicans had the majority of congress (a Democratically sponsored bill on stem cell research), and he vetoed eleven bills in his last two years when Republicans did not have the majority.
Who is responsible for the housing/banking collapse? Easy - George W. Bush. Now I know all you conservatives like Pro Vic love sitting in your wheelchairs and drawing government money each month and blaming the collapse on Clinton and even Carter, but it’s a ridiculous claim. It happened under Bush and he was warned many years in advance. The fact is, even if it was caused by anything that began under Clinton or Carter, Bush had the absolute power, especially with a Republican majority congress for the first six years, to change things.
There are so many differences in conservatives and liberals, the most noticeable is of course intelligence. But the most important are probably character, maturity and responsibility. It’s sad to watch these guys continually blame every single thing that happened under George W. Bush on a Democrat. No matter how far they have to stretch it, nothing was his fault.
And what did happen under Bush’s watch?
1. 9/11 happened while he sat and did nothing. Maybe that 2nd grade book was too interesting to him.
2. Patriot Act which took liberties guaranteed by the constitution away from American citizens.
3. Invasion of Iraq, a country proven to have had nothing to do with 9/11 and proven not to have WMDs even before we went in.
4. Tax breaks on the wealthiest which costs us 90 billion a year.
5. The housing bubble burst.
6. The stock market collapsed.
7. Banks went under. Something that hadn’t happened since the Great Depression.
8. Record bankruptcies and foreclosures.
9. More businesses went out of business than any other time in history.
10. More businesses relocated overseas than any other time in history.
11. Unemployment went out of control, doubling in his last six months as president.
Now conservatives love to point out that unemployment is around 10% right now. But they fail to acknowledge that this number represents a huge victory in that area. At the rate the unemployment was falling under Bush, had he been president for one more year, the unemployment rate would now be 19.7%.
But idiots like Pro Vic can’t understand that, maybe because there’s math involved. LOL
But the really pathetic thing is this immature compulsiveness to blame everything that happened under Bush on someone else.
Let’s take a hypothetical. Let’s say that Pro Vic was hired as a manager of a furniture store. (Ok, you have to use your imagination since we all know Pro Vic acknowledged on here that he draws disability.) Let’s say this store had a good financial record for the last eight years. But during eight years with Vic as manager, everything went to hell. Here’s what he would say:
“It wasn’t my fault.”
“The manager before me started this crazy sales program.”
“The delivery guys are following some crazy schedule set forth by the manager 20 years ago.”
“For the last two years, we’ve gotten a lot of new sales people and I’ve had no control over them."
There is a black guy, a mexican and a white man sitting in a bar
Jesus walks in and ask the black guy if there is anything he could do for him?
The black guy say his back is bad from having to do hard labor all day to provide for his family. So Jesus heals him
Jesus walks up to the mexican and asks if there is anything he can do for him?
The mexican guys say he has arthritis from working hard to make a living. So Jesus heals him
Jesus walks up to the white guy but the white guy jumps and says
"stay away from me im on disability!!!!"
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
And I think Bush did more for global warming than you realize.
His handling of the country closed up more businesses that were contributing to the polution of the atmosphere which cleaned up the air quite nicely. Thanks for that George.
His secret "Closed, No Trade" policy.
History is written on him Vic.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
I don't 'spew nonsense'----i state FACTS.
You're entitled to you're own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts.
You fit THE EXACT meaning of 'DELUSIONAL'
You substitute your own 'facts'-which are baseless---for the truth.
Who led us into this economy and was in control of Congress for the last 3 years?
Who is responsible for the housing/banking collapse?
Who has QUADRUPLED the deficit?
Who's trying to pass an unconstitutional law to socialize 1/6th of the economy?
DEMOCRATS!.
If history is written on Bush -than DOCUMENT IT.
You are DELUSIONAL and need an education in what a FACT is-----it is you who is in DENIAL
The waitress nodded "yes," so the Republican
requested that she give Jesus a cup of coffee, on him.
The next patron to come in was a Libertarian with a hunched
back.. He shuffled over to a booth, painfully sat down, and
asked the waitress for a cup of hot tea. He also glanced
across the restaurant and asked, "Is that Jesus over
there?"
The waitress nodded, so the Libertarian asked her to give
Jesus a cup of hot tea, "My treat."
The third patron to come into the restaurant was a Democrat
on crutches.
He hobbled over to a booth, sat down and hollered,
"Hey there, honey! How's about getting'
me a cold glass of Miller Light?"
He, too, looked across the restaurant and asked, "Is
that God's boy over there?"
The waitress once more nodded, so the Democrat directed her
to give Jesus a cold glass of beer. "On my
tab," he said.
As Jesus got up to leave, he passed by the Republican,
touched him and said, "For your kindness, you are
healed." The Republican felt the strength come back
into his legs, got up, and danced a jig out the door.
Jesus also passed by the Libertarian, touched him and said,
"For your kindness, you are healed." The
Libertarian felt his back straightening up, and he raised
his hands, praised the Lord and did a series of back flips
out the door.
And I think Bush did more for global warming than you realize.
His handling of the country closed up more businesses that were contributing to the polution of the atmosphere which cleaned up the air quite nicely. Thanks for that George.
Monkey not a service animal
A Missouri judge didn’t monkey around with a woman who claims a Bonnet Macaque monkey is trained to assist her with anxiety and agorophobia, finding the animal was “equivalent to a household...
---------------------------
Foreclosure vs. Short Sale. Which is Better?
Posted: 06 Nov 2009 06:56 AM PST
When you consider the tax consequences, future ability to purchase a home and the length of time involved for all, is there a true benefit to a short sale vs. a foreclosure sale? via Zillow Blog
---------------------------
Sam Zell: On the market & Recovery
Posted: 06 Nov 2009 06:02 AM PST
“The government intervention in the financial system has effectively slowed the liquidation of distressed assets and the result is that with government funding, the desire and the need to liquidate...
---------------------------
Quote of the Day
I’d walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball. - Pete Rose
Recall that the presidential race was a dead heat when the economic crisis hit last fall. Obama's legendary calm, cool, and collected manner was viewed as better for dealing with a crisis and he pulled ahead. We know now that this persona is a media-hyped marketing fiction devised by his campaign. His comical reliance on the teleprompter (at a rodeo!) has become the butt of late-night jokes, and in his unscripted moments he's like an unprepared high school debater fumbling for his lines.
The politician as leader has always been a curious formulation. Politicians are rarely leaders and yet that's what children are taught in school. Last fall's elections were viewed by teachers as an opportunity to show children that electing our leaders is the beauty of our democratic system.
At the local level -- the county board, mayors, township road commissioners, and tax assessors -- it's usually about competence rather than leadership. How else to explain Republican mayors elected in places like New York, despite an overwhelmingly Democrat electorate? Local politicians elevate social services above basic services to get elected and then find they can't pay for both. When basic services suffer, voters lose patience quickly. Mayor Daley in Chicago understands this better than just about anyone, with his laser focus on delivering city services efficiently. Indeed, it's how he has survived for twenty years in a city legendary for its corruption.
At the state or national level, try to name a senator or representative who's a true leader. It's likely to be no more than a handful of people. Most are elected because they reflect the views of their constituents, not because they've taken bold positions on controversial issues. Their own views of power and leadership can be sharply at odds with voters - Tom Daschle was defeated by his home state voters at the height of his power and influence as Senate Majority Leader, a fate that likely awaits Harry Reid.
It's the executive positions, the governors and the president, that occasionally call for leadership. But on those rare occasions, the media has the formulation almost exactly backward: leadership isn't something the voters give the candidate, it's something the candidate takes - and gets elected as a result. Winston Churchill's warnings about the need to defeat the Nazi menace sooner rather than later fell mostly on deaf ears, but he persisted in the face of ridicule by his countrymen. When the threat became real, his leadership was recognized and he was elected.
In the last 70 years, few presidents were truly called on by the people to lead. Roosevelt set the precedent that Obama now follows, which is that taking some kind of action, no matter how irresponsible and ineffective, or even destructive, is what counts. Ronald Reagan held to his conservative principles, even in the heyday of big-government liberalism, and won election eventually. His economic and foreign policy accomplishments set the stage for 25 years of almost uninterrupted prosperity and peace.
Can Obama still lead? He can -- his first 100 days (an artificial conceit if ever there were one) aren't even up yet -- but there's little reason for optimism. Obama touts pragmatism as his strength and explains pedantically that no core philosophy or guiding principles are needed, that he's open to all ideas. But most ideas so far reflect exclusively the Loony Left ideology, which has been rejected by voters repeatedly over decades, and the notion that the voters took a sharp Left turn in the last election is unsupported by either facts or polls. And Obama is now trying Chavez-style demagoguery as a proxy for leadership, attacking straw men with unusual vigor. He simply doesn't know what it means to be a leader.
Rising through the Chicago machine, Obama has taken the wrong lesson from Mayor Daley. He seems to be rehashing Michael Dukakis' old campaign slogan: "It's not about ideology, it's about competence." Obama's arguments about healthcare are truly alarming - he claims he can save enough money to insure the uninsured by having the government implement extraordinarily complex and expensive new computer systems and then manage the entire health care system more efficiently! It would be laughable if it wasn't so scary. It's another familiar refrain from the Left, that big-government programs aren't fundamentally flawed, they were just never properly administered. If Dukasis' defeat in the 1988 election showed anything, it was that it's all about ideology.
It's not that competence doesn't matter. The incompetence of the Obama administration is staggering and people are noticing. Hillary Clinton and the foreign policy appointees are not only naïve (negotiating with antisemitic haters) but embarrassingly clueless about basic protocol. Geithner has failed at Treasury, making his resignation almost a matter of time, and Obama should replace him while there are still prominent and trustworthy financial leaders willing to serve his administration. Rahm Emanuel sits around with the former Clinton political team drinking coffee and planning attacks on Rush Limbaugh, galvanizing the opposition. His juvenile antics were tolerable during the prosperous Clinton years but are disgusting in an economic crisis, yet no action from Obama to end it. In fact, they convinced Obama it was in his interest to attack Limbaugh!
It's a shame. Obama entered office with tremendous political capital, more than any president in recent memory, but has squandered much of it in a remarkably short time. He's like the factory worker who won the lottery and allowed his teenage children (Pelosi and Reid) to lose most of the money on a drunken gambling binge. He still has some left but how will he use it? Sadly, his political capital is likely to go the way of most of the bailout money -- a sad waste of a grand opportunity.
What would your reasoning be if the citizenship was not in question?
Bush's citizenship was never in question, and he violated more of your rights, right in front of you than Obama has, or will.
His poor performance, destroyed economy, and illegal war lies are written history. And are fact.
And he is an undisputed legal citizen, so that makes it ok.?
................................................................................................................................................................................
FACTS??
You have NO FACTS---ONLY DELUSIONS
Isn't ODUMBO the Commander in Chief? Isn't he responsible FOR EVERYTHING?
Doesn't the buck stop there?
It sure did with Bush, though, didn't it, LOONY?
I remember you LOONS blaming EVERYTHING but the weather on Bush
No, wait, you blamed the weather on him too, because he refused to be taken in by your 'global warming' nonsense.
How does it feel now that the shoe is on the other foot?
Get used to it, as, now unemployment is at 10.2%--hows that 'hope & change' working out for you?
What would your reasoning be if the citizenship was not in question?
Bush's citizenship was never in question, and he violated more of your rights, right in front of you than Obama has, or will.
His poor performance, destroyed economy, and illegal war lies are written history. And are fact.
And he is an undisputed legal citizen, so that makes it ok.?
Your worn out argument is weak, to laughable.
Your lack of explanation for the fault of this tradgedy, other than your wholesale blaming everything, including the ants in your sugar on Obama, speaks volumes of your lack of reality, and \ or perception thereof.
But, like a good teabagger, you just keep pumping the rhetoric.
1) A few comments on this response. Yes, I generally disagree with unions. Yes, I understand the history of unions. I agree that in the beginning when the railroads where using the Pinkerton’s to beat workers and stop organization it was a despicable act. Likewise, I certainly agree there was a time and place when workers did need protection to develop civilized wages and benefits. Further, there may be workers today which need help to develop these rights. However, that said, I think unions specifically AFL-CIO, SEIU, etc, are set-up to maintain the power of the unions. What I am truly against is the union boss mentality. I am against that fact that unions tend to be a fund raising arm of the left through members dues. I am also against the mentality that we must unionize people whether or not they want to be unionized. Here in Oak Creek, Woodmans, an employee owned food business, which has no desire to be unionized is constantly picketed because the union wants to get in. Why does it want to get in? Who does it serve? Will it allow Woodmans to keep its lower prices, an advantage over its competitors?
In theory, I would argue, unions shouldn’t have to exist. Why do those of you on the RIGHT think that there isn’t any need for unions today? Why is it wrong for workers to want what they think is a fair piece of the economic pie, as it relates to a particular business or industry? It’s funny how this NEVER applies to those at the top of the ladder, who with the assistance of their friends on Wall Street, business boardroom are never questioned. According to a 2005 study done by the EPI, (Economic Policy Institute) the average CEO was paid 821 times as much as a worker earning the federal minimum of $5.15 an hour. Maybe your reply would be……. so what……or…….well they’re running the company and their education, experience etc, etc, etc justifies their wage? Why doesn’t that logic apply to those who help make that company successful? Should hourly workers be paid the same? Of course not nor do they expect to be, but WITHOUT A UNION, what is the recourse for those think they should be paid more for their contributions? The RIGHT WING response is “if you don’t like what then quit and look for a better job”……right? That way we can find someone else to exploit because they too will not have any power to do anything about it either? Of course that’s what business wants and what YOU RIGHT WINGERS help them to propagandize year in and year out. You play right into their hands when they feed you the, (it’s what the “FREE MARKET” determines) that constitutes the wages that are paid to the average hourly worker. Yeah, and that same “FREE MARKET” that also determines the 821 times CEO/hourly wage disparity too…….right? Instead of seek equity you criticize those who have stood up to these inequities by saying they make too much, or get to many benefits, etc, etc, etc but that NEVER APPLIES TO THEOSE AT THE TOP because they’re SPECIAL!!! They deserve the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS THEY RECEIVE even if they’ve LEAD THEIR BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY INTO BACKRUPTCY!!! What are ALL the consequences of businesses moving their work to THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES? The RIGHT WING response id “EVERYONE BENEFITS” because the cost of whatever <u being made in this country is now CHEAPER!!! No doubt that it is but AT WHAT COST to the LOST REVENUES where those jobs used to be, the PRODUCTS & SERVICES that those once decent wages used to buy and support. The LOST REVENUE to the tax base that goes toward paying for ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS that most people expect to continue and on and on an on…….
1) A few points. Yes, you can sue the federal government, if it lets you, but it is a hard process. One difference, is that the government can write laws which allow them not to be sued.
I’m no expert when it comes to the legal field, but if something is written into the law it can possibly be removed or amended to right what may be wrong…………..”WE THE PEOPLE”!!!
2) I think it is better to use regulation to create an arbitration process between private entities and their clients, with the governments force to streamline the process.
You may be absolutely right, I don’t know whether or not this is true. I’m not a lawyer.
btw Pro_Vic's post "Thanks Obama" turns out to be true. The shooter was an Islamic
terrorist. Seems that for brownie points, he spent the morning passing out the Koran
to people. Awe, too bad, he's only wounded. I guess he'll have to wait to hook up with
those virgins after all.
I’ll only say this in response to your union bashing. Like most of your friends on the Right your ignorance of labor history is appalling but understandable since it was never taught properly in our private and public school system. Naturally, big business and corporations don’t want those facts taught because it would wake people up to the truths that have been swept under the carpet for decades. Are unions totally devoid of problems of course not…is any organization? Almost everything people in this country enjoy and take for granted, as it relates to work place rights, safety, a decent standard of living and many other benefits were the result of organized labor. Ask yourself this question. Why do unions exist in the first place?
1) A few comments on this response. Yes, I generally disagree with unions. Yes, I understand the history of unions. I agree that in the beginning when the railroads where using the Pinkertons to beat workers and stop organization it was a despicable act. Likewise, I certainly agree there was a time and place when workers did need protection to develop civilized wages and benefits. Further, there may be workers today which need help to develop these rights. However, that said, I think unions specifically AFL-CIO, SEIU, etc, are set-up to maintain the power of the unions. What I am truly against is the union boss mentality. I am against that fact that unions tend to be a fund raising arm of the left through members dues. I am also against the mentality that we must unionize people whether or not they want to be unionized. Here in Oak Creek, Woodmans, an employee owned food business, which has no desire to be unionized is constantly picketed because the union wants to get in. Why does it want to get in? Who does it serve? Will it allow Woodmans to keep its lower prices, an advantage over its competitors?
2) I think it is slightly disingenuous for you to suggest that federal union employees are somehow the down trodden of the workforce. Let’s be honest, they receive fair pay, a rich benefit package including pension, sick days, vacation days etc. As I stated, I understand the need to create living wages, but I suggest that federal employees clearly past that test. Why should they be held to a higher privilege and be exempt from the economic realities of todays 10.2% unemployment, with real unemployment at 17.2%. Neither I nor the President suggest they cut jobs, take a pay cut, etc. Just not take a pay increase. Is this really too much to ask? Can they not live in the same economic reality as the rest of us? Further, since there has been no inflation reported why do they need a COLA raise?
3) That was hardly bashing the unions. Pointing out that the unions want more money when everybody else is losing money; that is just a fair point to make.
How is that any different from someone who has private health care coverage and is denied care, that is prescribed by their personal physician, by a DEATH PANEL from a private health care insurer? Why would legal avenues be denied to someone who had an issue with government run health care? People file claims against the government all the time why would this be any different?
I don’t disagree with you on the profit motive issue you raised. This is a serious issue and we have to consider how it affects the delivery of services and how denials and rates are developed within the profit motive scheme.
There is a flip side to this which you haven’t discussed, which is the government’s black issue – budget motive. It is fair to say that the government has to operate within a budget. The government cannot afford to continue to print money to pay for the health needs of all people. These facts cannot be avoided. This creates rationing; which is why the government uses the consideration of “quality years” when determining who receives benefits. Hence my argument regarding the concept of a heart stent, if you could only afford to provide one more heart stent within your budgets and you have a 65 and an 85 year old man what will happen? I for one do not want the government making life altering decisions for me and my family based on budgets and statistical measures. Humanity means being more than just a mathematical equation.
I have addressed this issue to some extent when I referred to money that was being spent for other taxpayer items mainly (assumed) military needs that may or may not be necessary. (i.e. A new nuclear sub or aircraft carrier.) Don’t get me wrong I’m not against those things per se but they too must be weighed into the budgetary equation and what we as a nation decide is our hierarchy of priorities.
The government has another cost issue not faced by private insurance, unions. The government option would create thousands of government jobs worked by union employees. The unions have shown themselves unwilling to forgo raises even this year when the private sector has been devastated and millions have lost their jobs or taken pay cuts. These people just don’t live in the real world. When Obama asked Afscme to forgo its mandatory 2% raise this year (Again we are not taking about cutting jobs or pay) the union said no and in fact said it wanted more than the 2%. This is a huge problem for any government program such as health care. This pay can only come from a cut in services or additional taxes. The result is more burden on the people via exploding budgets or fewer services.
By contrast, if a private company doesn’t make a profit, they can tell their employees that there will be no raises. Further, it is easier for the private company to terminate employees to even out costs. The government doesn’t do this, they simply are an incredibly expensive cost center particularly considering their incredibly rich benefit packages.
I’ll only say this in response to your union bashing. Like most of your friends on the Right your ignorance of labor history is appalling but understandable since it was never taught properly in our private and public school system. Naturally, big business and corporations don’t want those facts taught because it would wake people up to the truths that have been swept under the carpet for decades. Are unions totally devoid of problems of course not…is any organization? Almost everything people in this country enjoy and take for granted, as it relates to work place rights, safety, a decent standard of living and many other benefits were the result of organized labor. Ask yourself this question. Why do unions exist in the first place?
Regarding costs, I think if the government is in charge of health care it will reduce the amount of new drugs/methods used by the medical community. This is the case because the government’s choices have to be centered on helping the most people within the budget. Let’s assume we have two drugs, one is older and provides a 60% survival rate at price X and a second has an 82% survival rate but the price is X * 1.75. The government will always choose the first because they can treat many more people with the first choice though more will die.
I won’t disagree that your point is a valid one. As I’ve said earlier the profit motive is a strong force and one that shouldn’t be squelched. This is an important factor that must be weighed into the health care debate.
This is our last strong request for people to step forward to volunteer as organizers for Tea Parties Against Amnesty & Illegal Immigration on Saturday, Nov. 14.
We are very pleased that we have 24 organizers in place so far, but we would like more. Remember that there will be a huge flood of interest in these events if Luis Gutierrez files his Amnesty bill before the 14th!
We also will be receiving more press coverage over the coming week so we need more towns and cities organized to receive the beneifits of that coverage.
Soon, our full attention will turn to 1. Getting more people to attend the events we do have organized. 2. Turning up the volume on our lobbying efforts and 3. Channeling the Tea Party efforts into more support for our lobbying against Amnesty and illegal immigration.
We have made becoming an organizer very simple.
You can simply pick a location where you want people to join you to hold signs and flags and to talk about Amnesty for illegal aliens or you can start off with something simple and build it up with guest speakers if you like.
The most important thing right now is to provide the American public with as many events as possible for each event, even if only a small gathering, will be a chance to get the truth out about Amnesty and illegal immigration.
If you, or someone you know is willing to sign up as an organizer, we will provide you with assistance, information, suggestions, etc....
Simply take the following steps.
1. Go to www.AgainstAmnesty.com and make sure you are signed up as a supporter on the homepage, but if the maps and Events List does not show an existing event within a one hour drive of your town, please visit the "Create Town Rally" page and fill out the ORGANIZER form at the bottom.
http://www.againstamnesty.com/organizer_application.php
2. E-mail the exact street address and description of your event location to Info@AgainstAmnesty.com (Ex. 55 Main St. 'City Hall" or 123 Circle Drive "Cactus Park" etc.)
Once you are on our maps and lists, people can contact you by e-mail if they are in your area and have questions.
As you can see, there are thousands of people signing up for these events but not as many organizers in place as we would like to have.
We need new events that have no existing events within an hour's travel, but there are some blank spots on the map where we have lots of interest but no organizers yet.
Atlanta, GA
Houston, TX
New York, NY
Portland, OR
Seattle, WA
Salt Lake City, UT
Las Vegas, NV
Kansas City, MO
St. Louis, MO
Nashville, TN
Sarasota, FL
We currently have events listed in the following cities that need your support.
Phoenix, AZ
Pasadena, CA
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Santa Maria, CA
Denver, CO
Durango, CO
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Sebring, FL
Post Falls, ID
Chicago, IL
Wilbraham, MA
Waterford, MI
St. Paul, MN
Dumont, NJ
Raleigh, NC
Columbus, OH
Maria Stein, OH
McAlester, OK
Hazleton, PA
Fort Worth, TX
Alexandria, VA
Sterling, VA
Let's do the best we can with our first foray into national events! We will continue to ad event locations each day before Nov. 14, but getting our maps soon will increase the turnout.
ALIPAC is receiving a large and steady flow of supporters that are coming to help us defeat Amnesty thanks to the Tea Parties Against Amnesty effort.
Many thanks to all of you that are supporting us and these efforts and we also thank the immigration enforcement groups, Tea Party groups, and 9/12 groups that are coming together behind these events.
Sincerely,
William Gheen
President, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC ALIPAC
Director, Tea Parties Against Amnesty
www.alipac.us
www.againstamnesty.com
Tel: (919) 787-6009 Toll Free: (866) 703-0864
Thanks Bush and Cheney, for starting a war in the wrong country against radical Arab Muslims, that in the future will have our brave soldiers die at home because of RELIGION, once again, that you were not smart enough to look back in history to see that NO country that occupied the area could EVER change.
Why don't you two idiots get off your lazy welfare asses, and go protect them yourselves?
Why do you depend on someone else to do it?
You've got all the answers.
Maybe you should be thanking Obama for not reinstating the draft, so your lazy loudmouth asses could be sent to fix the problem over there that you two armchair do nothing, contribute nothing quarterbacks keep rambling about.
No respect for the families, or the deceased, just the same stupid rhetoric.
If Lenders Say ‘The Dog Ate Your Mortgage’
FOR decades, when troubled homeowners and banks battled over delinquent mortgages, it wasn’t a contest. Homes went into foreclosure, and lenders took control of the property. via NYTimes.com.
------------------------------
Landlords can ban tenants’ guns
Tennessee Attorney General Bob Cooper says landlords can ban their tenants from bringing firearms into their property even if they have handgun carry permits. via The Tennessean.
------------------------------
Low rents mean low home values
The vacancy rate for rental apartments in the U.S. is now 7.8% — the highest vacancy rate in 23 years — and climbing, says The Wall Street Journal. That’s bad news for homeowners. Why? Because when...
------------------------------
Quote of the Day
Never give in! Never give in! Never, never, never, never — in nothing great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. - Sir Winston...
Twelve dead, thirty wounded in what was apparently an attack coordinated between two or three gunmen -- belying the post-traumatic stress syndrome spin playing out in the mainstream media.
If this turns out to be a jihad attack, watch for the President to caution against "backlash" and "Islamophobia."
GEE--Maybe ODUMBO should worry more about the war than his 'legacy' of health care.
Obama's first terrorist attack, in which he did NOTHING, accept worry about his socialist agenda..
2) This is not like welfare and does not take you family situation into account. It only concerns itself with two questions. Do you have insurance and does your insurance meet the minimum standard for a health care policy as described by the government. In this way any one without coverage could full under the public option and those whose employers do not offer a compliant plan could join the public option.
3) Great question. The simple fact is we do not know. The bills have not been finalized and have not gone through conference. In traditional single payer systems such as in Canada and the U.K. I do not believe there are co-pays.
There is a flip side to this which you haven’t discussed, which is the government’s black issue – budget motive. It is fair to say that the government has to operate within a budget. The government cannot afford to continue to print money to pay for the health needs of all people. These facts cannot be avoided. This creates rationing; which is why the government uses the consideration of “quality years” when determining who receives benefits. Hence my argument regarding the concept of a heart stent, if you could only afford to provide one more heart stent within your budgets and you have a 65 and an 85 year old man what will happen? I for one do not want the government making life altering decisions for me and my family based on budgets and statistical measures. Humanity means being more than just a mathematical equation.
The government has another cost issue not faced by private insurance, unions. The government option would create thousands of government jobs worked by union employees. The unions have shown themselves unwilling to forgo raises even this year when the private sector has been devastated and millions have lost their jobs or taken pay cuts. These people just don’t live in the real world. When Obama asked Afscme to forgo its mandatory 2% raise this year (Again we are not taking about cutting jobs or pay) the union said no and in fact said it wanted more than the 2%. This is a huge problem for any government program such as health care. This pay can only come from a cut in services or additional taxes. The result is more burden on the people via exploding budgets or fewer services.
By contrast, if a private company doesn’t make a profit, they can tell their employees that there will be no raises. Further, it is easier for the private company to terminate employees to even out costs. The government doesn’t do this, they simply are an incredibly expensive cost center particularly considering their incredibly rich benefit packages.
Regarding costs, I think if the government is in charge of health care it will reduce the amount of new drugs/methods used by the medical community. This is the case because the government’s choices have to be centered on helping the most people within the budget. Let’s assume we have two drugs, one is older and provides a 60% survival rate at price X and a second has an 82% survival rate but the price is X * 1.75. The government will always choose the first because they can treat many more people with the first choice though more will die.
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
But for any real examination as to whether Obama fulfills that requirement, the American people are forced to turn to the foreign media... most recently... to J. B. Williams’ blockbuster three-part series in CanadaFreePress.com.
Williams reveals a scary fact: national and state political parties are responsible for vetting and certifying their own candidates’ eligibility for the presidency and vice-presidency.
And in Obama's case the final vetting authority rested with none other than Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi... she was Chair of the Democratic National Convention . . . and thus the main signatory of the Democratic National Committee’s “Official Certification of Nomination” for transmission to the state parties and election commissions.
In other words, it was Pelosi who signed the document that claims Obama was properly vetted.
Actually, Pelosi, signed two documents. The first stated: "This is to certify that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution."
But that wasn't the signed and notarized document Nancy Pelosi sent to the election officials of all 50 states.
According to Williams, Pelosi and the DNC only sent that first document to one state – Hawaii.
Pelosi sent the other 49 states another document altogether... also signed and notarized on the same day as the first... almost identical to the first document except that it omitted some key words in the “Official Certification” that only Hawaii received. Guess which words?
You guessed it. The omitted words were all those after the word “respectively.” That is, Pelosi left out the following: “and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution."
And one can only ask... Why?
House Minority Leader, John Boehner, the main signatory on the Republicans’ “Official Certification of Nomination” sent the same document to Hawaii – and the other 49 states. It said, truthfully, that John McCain (and Sarah Palin) were constitutionally eligible for the nation’s two highest offices.
It would appear that Williams has discovered more smoking guns than you’d find in a 1950s-era Hollywood Western.
Here’s how Williams summarizes his findings: “A political national committee [the DNC], the Chair of the Party convention [Pelosi], the Secretary of the Party [another signatory], Party offices in each of fifty states, and maybe many more [people], have knowingly and wantonly defrauded the American election system and more than 300 million American citizens.”
And Williams, unlike the MSM, doesn’t mince words: "some form of a conspiracy to mislead and ultimately defraud voters took place at the top of the Democrat Party." And Williams adds: "Nancy Pelosi knew that she was signing a false statement on behalf of Obama."
However, anyone who’s ever heard NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN or MSNBC talk about Pelosi and the bogus “Official Certification of Nomination” clearly has been having hallucinations. They’ve never mentioned the subject.
Homeowners become reluctant landlords
With housing prices still in the dumps, many Americans are finding themselves in the uncomfortable position of landlord. Some have been forced to relocate for a job and can’t sell their houses....
-----------------------------------
Strapped Borrowers Head to Court
Some struggling homeowners are turning to the courts in a bid to force mortgage servicers to consider them for the Obama administration’s foreclosure-rescue program, arguing they are eligible...
-----------------------------------
Record $2.72M in Rental Discrimination Case
Real estate mogul Donald Sterling, who owns the Los Angeles Clippers, has agreed to pay $2.725 million to settle litigation alleging that he violated fair housing law by discriminating against dozens...
-----------------------------------
The real cost of homeownership
When renters are considering buying a home, it is important that they not only look at the monthly mortgage payment compared with their monthly rent payment, but that they also consider other costs...
-----------------------------------
Quote of the Day
Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with...
You don't read the bible for the word it shares. You read it to throw in others faces during your stupid bible arguments. You have no religion, and no religion would have you.
You are a fraud.
And a leaker.
Keep posting your useless nonsense. Who the hell cares anyway.
The only kind of post anyone can make to you is ad- hominem. You bring it on yourself.
Get a fucking job, deadbeat. I'm tired of paying for your existance, and your computer, and connection, so you can keep up your sorry assed crap on here.
............an individuals ability to pay for health insurance and how that equates to the level or quality of care they'll be able to receive. You've made some assumptions such as linking good health care practices to good health which is very true but as we both know things can go very bad regardless of how well you may take care of yourself. So the question comes down to how does the for profit health insurance industry stay profitable and still provide its paying customers with a level of care necessary to sustain life if and when that becomes necessary? In other words, does the ability to receive life sustaining care depend on an individuals ability to pay?
If government needs to mandate/regulate for profit health insurance to insure that they provide the care they've said they will through their plans, then in effect I would argue, that the so called "free market" "for profit" health insurance industry is only a viable business from the stand point of choosing who gets care and who doesn't based on an individuals ability to pay! The vary fact that we as a society have to provide those who are unable to pay with a government run plan such as medicare & medicaid is testament to that very fact isn't it?
You see, I think you're right when you say that the profit motive is what provides incentive to health care providers to do the best possible job they can and thus create and very wonderful health care system. However, there's a dark side to all of this as well and that is the money factor!!! There's really no getting around that issue because people want to be paid for their services and rightly so but at some point one must face the inevitable question of "profits before people" or "people before profits"!!!
In theory…..allowing insurance companies to compete across State lines sounds good until you through State’s rights and each State’s individual laws and regulations when it comes to what is required by Insurance companies and the kinds of policies they can sell. If this idea was to become the law of the land the problems that exist today would still exist and I would argue could very possibly become worse.
1) This is where federal regulation is needed to mandate the rules by which companies must play by. In the current bill the government will mandate what must be covered by first dollar coverage. However this is where issues come into play regarding such issues as abortion. I personally don’t think we should pay for them on many levels. Let’s be honest there is any number of ways to prevent pregnancy and if you become pregnant (outside of rape or incest) it’s your own damn fault. These types of issues will have to be resolved but creating an over-arching regulatory structure and resolve this. But this is a tight-rope maneuver because premiums could be blown through the roof if to much is included in first dollar coverage.
Again this all sounds good, but what if the individual in question can’t afford to pay the extra cost they’re asking to pay for the “risk sensitive activity” as you call it? By “risk sensitive activity” I’m assuming you’re including “life threatening care” in that same category?
1) To the first part of the question, this is the good part of the free market. Let us say I smoke. Should the insurance company have a right to charge me more for this, of course they should. Let us say that I can’t afford the premium, then I am forced to choose between unhealthy habits or insurance. Therefore I must choose personal responsibility and be held to account for my choices. I think we all need to be held to account for our choices. If we were it would limit poor behaviors.
As far as I’m aware, every other industrialized nation but ours has some form of government run health care and NO ONE is turned away for anything they need. But we can’t have that here…..that would be too humane I guess plus it would cost money. Can’t have that we might not be able to build a billion dollar jet or two…and that’s far more important then providing health care to someone …..right?
1) I am confused we have “some form of government run health care”, medicare, medicade and schip. If you need care you can walk into any emergency room in the country.
At the end of the day, do you believe in a society that looks after ALL of its citizens or only the WINNERS…of that wonderful so called “FREE MARKET”???
1) As a side note – who do you consider winners, those that are currently receiving insurance. 260,000,000 of the 300,000,000 Americans.
2) No, I believe in safety nets but limited safety nets. We should not, we must not, create a systems which encourages people to drop current costs to jump on government programs or causes people to limit or mis-place their responsibilities. While I believe all citizens need a level of protection but I do not believe we should hand all the keys to the government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely – this is true with any government program.
Mr McDonnell has ended nearly eight years of Democrat rule in Virginia!!
US Democrats have lost ground in two key elections for governor, according to unofficial results.
One Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell, has won in Virginia, while another, Chris Christie, is leading in the Democrat heartland of New Jersey.
The results are being seen as a test of the two parties' standings one year after President Obama was elected.
Two Congressional seats are also up for grabs in New York and California. New York is among cities choosing a mayor.
While local issues have been paramount in these races, a win could boost party morale ahead of 2010 mid-term ballots.
In New Jersey, the incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine has been fighting a bitter campaign against his Republican rival Chris Christie, not only attacking him over his ties to former President George W Bush and his views on abortion and healthcare, but also poking fun at his weight.
With most of the votes now counted, Mr Christie was ahead with about 50% of the vote.
A defeat in New Jersey would sting the Democrats, especially after Mr Obama threw his weight behind Governor Corzine, repeatedly travelling to New Jersey to back the former Goldman Sachs chief executive on the campaign trail.
Car immobilized- Code Enforcement in Contempt
It’s a new twist in the parking debate. The head of Toledo’s code enforcement department may be held in contempt of court. The city of Toledo violated a court order when they towed a...
---------------------------------
Underwater and Not Walking Away: Shame, Fear and the Social Management of the Housing Crisis
Abstract Despite reports that homeowners are increasingly “walking away” from their mortgages, most homeowners continue to make their payments even when they are significantly underwater. This...
---------------------------------
Top 3 Real Estate Mortgage Scams
According to industry professionals, there are three principal or familiar types of real estate fraud: 1. Identity theft via mortgage request2. Bait and switch3. Loan flipping via RISMedia.
---------------------------------
Quote of the Day
He does not really believe his own opinions who dares not give free scope to his opponent. - Wendell Phillips
a. My answer is that the private sector can do it more efficiently because government programs suffer from one fatal flaw – the costs do not affect them directly because they are paid by other people’s money. It is important to note that on average the cost of public programs are underestimated by a factor of seven and historically Medicare has been underestimated by a factor of nine. So if the averages hold, what will Nancy’s bill cost us?
i. I would also like to point out that part of this bill requires cutting the fraud in Medicare which accounts for $300 billion. That means that all these years a few million in auditors could have saved us billions of dollars. They knew there was fraud and didn’t do anything about it. This is the problem with paying for things with other peoples’ money. You just don't care.
First off are you sitting down? As much as I rant and rave against our “FREE MARKET” system I DO believe in it………….. in PRINCIPAL. All the things you’ve pointed out have real merit. However, when it come right down to it one must ask…..will the ”FREE MARKET” provide for all or just those that can pay their way? Will the quality and extent of coverage depend on what one can afford? Can’t afford the high cost of critical care….damn shame….that’s the “FREE MARKET” …………..winners and losers! As for the regulators not doing their job to uncover the fraud in the system….I know of ONE PARTY who has lead the charge to take government off the backs of business and people…..do you remember who made that proclamation. Think “B” rated movie star!!! I remember a time when our government did an excellent job regulating for the common good of the nation.
b. Who can do it more humanely – this is the tough question. As I stated earlier there are definite issues with denies in the public sector but let us not forget that on average Medicare turns down twice the number of people annually then private coverage. Why is this, the government only has so much money and must make hard choices as how to use it wisely. If you could only give one heart valve to a 95 year old or a 65 year old, who would you give it to? These are the decisions Medicare must make. At the end of the day both groups ration care but I think the private sector takes it on the chin more often because people pay premiums directly, unlike Medicare where we all pay the premium.
c. My answer as above is to first allow all insurance to be sold across state lines and mandate restrictions on denials or a mitigation process. Further, instead of sucking everyone into a government system, have the government create a high risk pool such that we can handle those cases directly and administer this pool through the established framework of Medicare/Medicade. Allow, the 20 and 30 somethings that don’t buy health care to purchase discounted rate policies in the high risk pool. This will bring more money into the system while marginally effecting the costs. In theory…..allowing insurance companies to compete across State lines sounds good until you through State’s rights and each State’s individual laws and regulations when it comes to what is required by Insurance companies and the kinds of policies they can sell. If this idea was to become the law of the land the problems that exist today would still exist and I would argue could very possibly become worse.
2) We should also consider the control aspects for both cases. In the case of private health insurance if they deem an activity risk sensitive they may charge me an extra fee. I then have the choice to continue with this activity and pay a higher fee, or not. If we go down the road of public health care (and while we can argue about this later – this bill would lead to single payer over time ) the government will also have to review risks. The government has two options, to pass a tax (not drastically different the a premium increase) or ban the activity. Again this all sounds good, but what if the individual in question can’t afford to pay the extra cost they’re asking to pay for the “risk sensitive activity” as you call it? By “risk sensitive activity” I’m assuming you’re including “life threatening care” in that same category?
a. I don’t want to live under a system in which the things I enjoy can be removed because they may be risk sensitive. I enjoy riding a motorcycle, let’s say that the government said this as twice as risky as a car so we will outlaw this activity (not the best example but you see where I am going). At the end of the day if we have government health care I don’t trust either party not to use health care as a pretext to advance their agendas by allowing , disallowing or taxing activates. As far as I’m aware, every other industrialized nation but ours has some form of government run health care and NO ONE is turned away for anything they need. But we can’t have that here…..that would be too humane I guess plus it would cost money. Can’t have that we might not be able to build a billion dollar jet or two…and that’s far more important then providing health care to someone …..right?
b. The other example is raising taxes on products such as soda. This is a regressive tax disproportionately affecting those of lower income. Let’s be honest a $.03 per can of sugary drink doesn’t affect the rich. However, we know from recent literature that people in low income neighborhoods have lower positive food choices and are more like as a whole to consume the beverages that will be taxed. The fact is that to support the cost of health care the government will need to raise these types of regressive taxes across many categories which only serve to lover the ability of the poorest amongst us to break the cycle of poverty. I agree it won’t do anything to solve the health care issue
3) At the end of the day you don’t have to be a math major to know that you cannot add 40 million people to the medical system and be deficit neutral. Sure you can play games with how the numbers come out but at the end of the day the program has to be paid for and that is taxes, taxes, taxes and more taxes. All on top of a program designed behind closed doors, not meant to be understood by the common reader and which has not fully addressed the issue of the un-insured and which has an astronomical price tag. IS THIS REALLY WHAT WE NEED????
Medicare/Medicade which I think have done a good job are relatively expensive programs and will continue to grow in costs with an aging population. Here too I think people have been generally pleased with their care.
So where is the argument? Let’s review a couple of facts which we should be considering before we pass this huge piece of legislation:
1) Profits before people. Let us consider this question, whether or not we believe in free markets or the government, is there a true difference between the profits earned by companies based on the free payment of premiums or the taxes paid to the government for the same cost. At the end of the day both groups must administer their plans, pay staff, pay for their property, plant and equipment- and at the end of the day no matter which way it is sliced it comes out of our pocket. The question is which one can do it more efficiently and more humanely.
a. My answer is that the private sector can do it more efficiently because government programs suffer from one fatal flaw – the costs do not affect them directly because they are paid by other people’s money. It is important to note that on average the cost of public programs are underestimated by a factor of seven and historically Medicare has been underestimated by a factor of nine. So if the averages hold, what will Nancy’s bill cost us?
i. I would also like to point out that part of this bill requires cutting the fraud in Medicare which accounts for $300 billion. That means that all these years a few million in auditors could have saved us billions of dollars. They knew there was fraud and didn’t do anything about it. This is the problem with paying for things with other peoples’ money. You just don't care.
b. Who can do it more humanely – this is the tough question. As I stated earlier there are definite issues with denies in the public sector but let us not forget that on average Medicare turns down twice the number of people annually then private coverage. Why is this, the government only has so much money and must make hard choices as how to use it wisely. If you could only give one heart valve to a 95 year old or a 65 year old, who would you give it to? These are the decisions Medicare must make. At the end of the day both groups ration care but I think the private sector takes it on the chin more often because people pay premiums directly, unlike Medicare where we all pay the premium.
c. My answer as above is to first allow all insurance to be sold across state lines and mandate restrictions on denials or a mitigation process. Further, instead of sucking everyone into a government system, have the government create a high risk pool such that we can handle those cases directly and administer this pool through the established framework of Medicare/Medicade. Allow, the 20 and 30 somethings that don’t buy health care to purchase discounted rate policies in the high risk pool. This will bring more money into the system while marginally effecting the costs.
2) We should also consider the control aspects for both cases. In the case of private health insurance if they deem an activity risk sensitive they may charge me an extra fee. I then have the choice to continue with this activity and pay a higher fee, or not. If we go down the road of public health care (and while we can argue about this later – this bill would lead to single payer over time ) the government will also have to review risks. The government has two options, to pass a tax (not drastically different the a premium increase) or ban the activity.
a. I don’t want to live under a system in which the things I enjoy can be removed because they may be risk sensitive. I enjoy riding a motorcycle, let’s say that the government said this as twice as risky as a car so we will outlaw this activity (not the best example but you see where I am going). At the end of the day if we have government health care I don’t trust either party not to use health care as a pretext to advance their agendas by allowing , disallowing or taxing activates.
b. The other example is raising taxes on products such as soda. This is a regressive tax disproportionately affecting those of lower income. Let’s be honest a $.03 per can of sugary drink doesn’t affect the rich. However, we know from recent literature that people in low income neighborhoods have lower positive food choices and are more like as a whole to consume the beverages that will be taxed. The fact is that to support the cost of health care the government will need to raise these types of regressive taxes across many categories which only serve to lover the ability of the poorest amongst us to break the cycle of poverty.
My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and
Willie G. Davidson that makes the awesome Harley Davidson
Motorcycles.
Idon't hate the rich. I don't pity the
poor.
I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time
watching or arguing about it.
I've never owned a slave, or was a slave,
I haven't burned any witches or been persecuted by the
Turks and neither have you! So, shut up already.
I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go
back to where you came from and change your own
country!
This is AMERICA .We like it the way it is!
If you were born here and don't like it you are free to
move to any Socialist country that will have
you.
I want to know which church is it exactly where the
Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his
money, and why he is always part of the problem and not
the solution.
Can I get an AMEN on that one?
I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if
you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you
are... And, no, I don't mind having my face shown
on my drivers license.
I think it's good.... And I'm proud that 'God' is written
on my money.
I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works,
I don't want you deciding who should be running the most
powerful nation in the world for the next four
years.
I dislike those people standing in the intersections
trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into
making 'donations' to their cause. Get a Job and do your part!
I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child,
it takes two parents.
I believe 'illegal' is illegal no matter what the lawyers think.
I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed
in AMERICA !
If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD
American.
You seem like a decent reasonable person........... DOES THAT SIT RIGHT WITH YOU??? You must have heard of the person that needed cancer treatments but was DENIED that treatment because they forgot to report an ACNE condition they had when they were younger. BOTTOM LINE.......PROFITS BEFORE PEOPLE!!!
As for the tea party I will agree to disagree with you. I don’t understand your need to demonize them because their policies are not to the left. I think in some cases these people have a legitimate beef which is not being answered by their representatives. At the end of the day it is each elected officials job to answer to their constituents one way or another. We will see how these people respond and that will bring us to the truth of who they are.
They tell stories like RONNIE RETARD REAGAN did about the WELFARE QUEENS IN THE GHETTOS who ride around in Cadillac’s all day sucking up the government dole. Meanwhile the real thieves on WALL STREET who rip off more taxpayer dollars in ONE DAY then any welfare recipient can in a LIFETIME is in tears of laughter and rolling around on the floor of his BILLION DOLLAR PENTHOUSE in Manhattan after reading about the welfare story in his WALL STREET URINAL!!!
Yes the dumbing down of AMERICA is almost complete and THE FRINGE FRAUD CROWD is leading the way!!! You just don’t think it through!!! Is there WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE in government? ABSOLUTELY!!! Should something be done about it? ABSOLUTELY!!! The group you hang with thinks the problem can be resolved through PRIVITIZATION!!! Do away with government and let the "FREE MARKET" solve it all!!! Let the ”FREE MARKET” build and repair the roads and plow the streets, provide for clean water, electric and gas because just like with ”HEALTH CARE” these private ”FOR PROFIT” firms are going to put OUR BEST INTEREST ahead off their PROFIT MARGINS…."THE BOTTOM LINE"!!!
Landlords Oppose Tax Exempt Housing
The landlords also say that they cannot afford to match the $300 monthly rent (including water) that would be charged for the proposed PILOT homes, calling it unfair marketplace competition. via...
------------------------------
The Home Buyer Tax Credit Is a Bad Idea
The most cogent argument against the government providing expanded subsidies for its citizens to buy property in a sinking real estate market is that the cost per incremental home sale would jump to,...
------------------------------
How Imminent Is Eminent Domain?
The very idea of one’s property being seized is anathema to the American psyche and is not taken lightly by either the government or the citizen(s) involved in a possible seizure. In this exclusive...
------------------------------
Quote of the Day
You can control and organize your daily life, one day at a time. But you’re not really in control of the big picture. And you learn that you can’t make other people do what you want...
------------------------------
I absolutely agree......these are some really outstanding people who will catapult this FRINGE FREAK FRAUDULENT MOVEMENT TO THE TOP and I'm going to do all I can to point out who the LEADERS ARE OF THESE FRINGE FREAK FRAUDS!!!
The tea party group tends to be anti-liberal and discontented with the Republican party. They tend to be libertarian by nature, anti-tax, anti-big government, anti-government business as usual. Infact they are done with both parties. They will not vote for a republican because they are a republican. They will seek or create independence. Infact, I think one of the worst things republicans could do is believe the tea party will support them because the tea party is anit-liberal. This does not mean the party is pro-republican. Any repub who believes this they will get burned.
So! fellow Libs continue to encourage these RIGHT WING LUNATIC FRINGE FRAUD FREAK FLEA BAGGERS in their quest to take over the REpubliTARDED PARTY because this could hopefully lead to its ULTIMATE RETARDED DEMISE or at the very least fractionalize it into OBLIVION!!!
"Tea Party Activists Are the New GOP"
by John Nichols on 11/01/2009
Richard Viguerie, the legendary hard-right activist who spent much of the past decade arguing that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were too liberal, now declares that the days of even the most minimal moderation are now over in the Republican Party.
"Tea Party Activists Are the New GOP," says Viguerie.
There is little reason to argue with the man whose direct-mail campaigning funded the rise of the Republican right in the late 1970s and who grumbled loudly when Newt Gingrich, Bush, Cheney and Republican leaders tried to soften the party's roughest edges.
Viguerie isn't grumbling now.
He's celebrating. And rightly so.
Moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava, the party's nominee in Tuesday's special election for an open New York congressional seat, has suspended her campaign. And with that move, the new "new right" -- which Viguerie describes as "Tea Party activists, town hall protesters, and conservatives across the country" -- can claim a clear victory in its struggle to define the GOP as a far more extreme party than anything envisioned by Bush, Cheney or Gingrich.
Scozzafava, a state legislator, had the Republican ballot line and support from the party apparatus in Washington. But Tea Party and Town Hall activists -- and their mentors and funders such as former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, and the powerful Club for Growth -- threw their support behind Doug Hoffman, a more right-wing contender running on the New York Conservative Party line.
Scozzafava took a beating for her support for gay rights and abortion rights, her alliances with organized labor and her sympathy for the plight of the unemployed.
The attacks were brutal and they dried up financial support for the GOP nominee's campaign -- even though she began as a presumed frontrunner in New York's historically Republican 23rd district, where the seat went vacant after President Obama nominated moderate Republican Congressman John McHugh to serve as Secretary of the Army.
Reactionary Republicans, led by 2008 vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, threw their support to Hoffman.
With her poll numbers tanking, Scozzafava finally gave up with just three days to go before Tuesday's election.
Now that the GOP nominee is out of the running, Hoffman is well positioned to compete with Democratic newcomer Bill Owens in a race to fill a seat that has not elected a Democrat in more than a century.
Scozzafava said she would vote in Tuesday's special election for Democrat Owens, issuing a statement that read:
You know me, and throughout my career, I have been always been an independent voice for the people I represent. I have stood for our honest principles, and a truthful discussion of the issues, even when it cost me personally and politically.
It is in this spirit that I am writing to let you know I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same," Scozzafava added. "It's not in the cards for me to be your representative, but I strongly believe Bill is the only candidate who can build upon John McHugh's lasting legacy in the U.S. Congress.
No matter what its contours, the Hoffman-Owens result will be a footnote to the Scozzafava-Hoffman saga.
As GOP strategist Paul Erickson told The Washington Post with regard to the latter struggle: "This is entirely a battle over the definition and winning formula for Republican candidates going into the midterm elections of 2010 and beyond."
Erickson's point is well taken.
Republicans who have tried to move party back toward the political mainstream, after a three-year losing streak that has cost the GOP control of the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate and the White House, are frustrated -- and a little bit scared. As Gingrich, who backed the decision of local Republican leaders to nominate Scozzafava, explained: "I think we are going to get into a very difficult environment around the country if suddenly conservative leaders decide they are going to anoint people without regard to local primaries and local choices."
Republican strategist John Weaver, a veteran aide to 2008 presidential nominee John McCain, echoed that theme.
"Because of what's happened, we're going to have some mischief-making, which is not positive for a party that needs to really focus on other fundamentals in order to make a comeback," explains Weaver.
But Gingrich, Weaver and other advocates for mainstreaming the GOP have been beaten. Badly.
And Viguerie and his crew get the bragging rights.
Calling the developments in the New York race "an earthquake in American politics," the right-wing strategist predicted that it would be "the first of many challenges to establishment Republicans that we will see for the 2010 elections and beyond."
Viguerie is right.
And it is not just the party of Lincoln or the old "Rockefeller Republicans" that is being broken.
Gingrich and those conservatives who argued for broadening the party's base have suffered a serious blow.
The GOP is now, as Richard Viguerie says, the party of "the Tea Parties and their candidates."
The question, of course, is whether a GOP defined by "the Tea Parties and their candidates" can compete not just in New York's 23rd district -- where the party has always won -- but across the great expanse of a country where the party has in recent years been losing.
If Viguerie and his compatriots are correct, it is not just the Republican Party but America that is about to take the most rightwing turn in its history.
If Viguerie and his compatriots are wrong, the Grand Old Party could be turning toward a permanent minority status that only the most enthusiastic Democrats dared imagine.
Gingrich, ever the wise analyst, is anticipating -- or perhaps the proper word is "dreading" -- the latter result.
How can that be REpubliTARDED MORONS how can a CAPITALIST ORGANIZATION be the most MOST PROFITABLE AIRLINE in the U.S.A. with a SOCIALIST ORGANIZATION embedded in its corporate structure???
Those REpubliTARDED DOPE SLAPS just keep adding up don't they REpubliTARDED MORONS???
Media manipulation by the right-wing to influence public perception has been a decade-long tactic to undermine voter registration in America. While the current media frenzy surrounding the community organization ACORN is only partly related to voter registration efforts, it is important to note that the attacks have been built on a foundation of misinformation and media manipulation by the right-wing over several years, largely surrounding the myth of "voter fraud."
How this strategy has played out was the subject of a recent independent academic study, "Manipulating the Public Agenda: Why Acorn was the News, and What the News Got Wrong." Conducted by Peter Dreier, director of the Urban and Environmental Policy Center at Occidental College and Christopher Martin, professor of journalism at the University of Northern Iowa, the report examines how "the little-known community organization became the subject of a major news story in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, to the point where 82% of the respondents in an October 2008 national survey reported they had heard about ACORN."
In a press release, the authors say that "...repetition of unverified allegations and distortions was the rule in national reporting of a purported `voter fraud' scandal involving the community organizing group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) during the 2008 presidential campaign."
According to the study, 647 ACORN-related news stories published in 15 news outlets between 2007 and 2008, many of which parroted a plethora of unverified allegations from conservative parties.
"The academic study found that news-media coverage of the voter-fraud charges failed to distinguish between problems with registering voters and actual voting irregularities, which are rare," wrote Chronicle of Philanthropy writer Suzanne Perry, who recently covered "Manipulating the Public Agenda."
"It also found that 80 percent of the stories failed to mention that Acorn was reporting registration irregularities to the authorities; 85 percent failed to report that the group was acting to stop incidents of registration problems; and 96 percent failed to provide deeper context, especially about efforts by Republican Party officials to use voter-fraud allegations to dampen voting by low-income and minority Americans."
A prime example of conservative framing coloring the news, the study notes, is the widely reported August 2009 release of White House and Republican National Committee transcripts and emails. All major news outlet reports on the transcripts - which revealed that former Bush senior advisor, Karl Rove, helped orchestrate the firing of former New Mexico U.S Attorney David Iglesias "for failing to help Republican election prospects by prosecuting alleged instances of voter fraud by ACORN" - failed to discuss Rove's overt plan to attack ACORN's voter registration efforts in New Mexico and other states.
According to the study, this "demonstrates that there are indeed intensive political efforts to influence the national news agenda and to frame news stories by special interest groups."
In the study, Dreier and Martin note that, while the current frenzy is about ACORN, the pattern of manipulation has important ramifications for organizations across the country. "Although the 2008 presidential election is long over, conservative opinion entrepreneurs and the conservative media echo chamber remain fixated on ACORN,and poised to inject their frame about ACORN as an issue in the 2010 and 2012 national elections."
"Were this simply an isolated example of media complicity (witting or unwitting) with political organizations, the attack on ACORN would be of interest only to ACORN, its allies and detractors. But this case has wider implications. Our analysis of the narrative framing of the ACORN stories demonstrates that--despite long-standing charges from conservatives that the news media are determinedly liberal and ignore conservative ideas--the news media agenda is easily permeated by a persistent media campaign, even when there is little or no truth to the story."
In an Oct. 21 feature, the San Francisco Bay Guardian outlined the conservative agenda of using the mainstream media and playing on the public's psyche to promote the Party and its special interests. Bryant Welch, a clinical psychologist, author, and expert on political manipulation, tells the Guardian that "the right-wing commentators' success lies partly in their ability to harness core human emotions such as paranoia or envy."
"This is very, very sophisticated propaganda," says Welch. "I don't think progressives really get it that it's a technique being used all the time."
Republicans approach issues as a marketing challenge, according to George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley and author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. In the Guardian, Lakoff says that to "counter this tactic...the left would do well to learn how to frame things in moral terms instead of playing defense against right-wing spin masters."
Yet market access to what is owned and exchanged in another society has in fact enormous costs for that society which are borne by its citizens' taxes and government deficits. The benefits of these tax-supported goods, under present trade agreements, are now received cost-free by foreign corporations who buy and sell in other societies' markets without having to contribute to the many costs of their ownership and trade in these societies.
Their goods are produced elsewhere and provide no jobs in the markets to which they sell.
The home society provides police protection, publicly-paid-for roads, subsidized utilities, water and sewage systems, and many other domestically financed and highly expensive infrastructures and protections. To these expenses have now been added still further major costs of protecting foreign-owned corporations' patents (e.g., in medicines) and enforcing intellectual property rights (e.g., over farmers' seeds and authors' texts, even against their own growers and writers).
Foreign corporations (or domestic ones) which pay no taxes for the protection and utilization of these publicly-financed supports and services are thus free-riders on public expenditures which increasingly disemployed citizens are required to pay for. Current free trade agreements grant this free-rider status to all non-domestic corporations, and increasingly to domestic corporations as well, by subsidies, tax reductions and exemptions designed to keep them from investing elsewhere.
This is why private corporations have been so unanimous in supporting these trade agreements. As free-riders on public purses and deficits, it is in their self-interest to institute free trade regimes which grant them this ever more extended right to free-riding. Under this system, societies must compete against one another in granting private corporations ever lower domestic tax rates and favourable treatment. To pay for this subsidization of corporations, societies must reduce more and more of their social spending for public needs.
In this way, a spiral of bankrupting public sectors to subsidize private corporations has been set in motion, with no apparent limit to its special-interest demands and to government concessions. Ironically, the same corporations that are feeding so greedily at the public trough are the same ones that are given to lecturing governments about "overspending" and warning citizens and taxpayers that there is "no free lunch."
2. The second illogical premise of current international trade agreements is that damages and losses suffered by corporations are to be recognized and regulated, but damages and losses to workers, governments, communities, environments, publicly-owned resources, and any other economic sector are not to be recognized or effectively regulated at all.
Implicit in this one-sided protection of corporate economic interests is the assumption that the public interest which governments are supposed to represent has become "too costly" and must be abandoned, while the private interests governments are supposed to regulate require less regulation but more public subsidies.
3. The third and perhaps most pernicious illogical premise is that the damages and losses inflicted by private corporate interests on other sectors through free trade agreements are never to be borne or paid for by the corporations which inflict them, but only by their victims--the workers and taxpayers.
The corporations, in other words, are assumed not only to have the right to a free ride on costly services and infrastructures paid for by the citizens of free-trade countries, but the right to be held non-liable for any costs and damages they inflict within these countries.
In a normal context, we would call these assumptions not only illogical, but downright psychopathic. The fact is, however, that these unrestricted corporate rights and their consequences are now built into free trade agreements and considered as "givens" by transnational corporations, international investors, and their apologists in political, academic and media circles.
Indeed, this favoured treatment of corporations is now justified as "inevitable," and its costs to workers and the environment as "necessary adjustments" to the "tough new realities of the global marketplace."
This inevitability doctrine of the prevailing market ideology is typical of fundamentalist religious sects. There is "an invisible hand," we are told, that governs human events with an omniscient logic that cannot be interfered with.
Followers of the true faith will be rewarded in some certain but vaguely defined realm of future prosperity, while those who resist will be consigned to the hell-fires of "painful cuts" and "shock treatment."
No amount of human suffering or natural destruction exacted by this doctrine's implementation can prove it false, because its truths are eternal and not subject to contradictory evidence. Salvation can only be won by obedience to its "iron laws," though life for the majority in fact grows ever more bleak and desperate under its rule.
What we need is a rule-based international economy
By John McMurtry
All freedoms have limits. Freedom of speech does not include the right to slander one's neighbour or to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. In the same way, the free market needs to have limits imposed on its operations. Otherwise, as we now see, the unfettered free market tends to weaken or destroy the resources of life and freedom for the majority, to benefit mainly a small wealthy minority, and to leave most people with little but their own work to live by and increasing tens of millions without even that.
The more unequal the possession of wealth is in a free market, the more people there are without the money to buy what they need for a decent life, and the less freedom the free market assures for the society in which it operates.
In recent years, globe-girdling technologies and international free trade agreements have increasingly allowed corporations and investment capital to sever their connection with any given community or nation or culture.
Workers anywhere can now be displaced, not only by workers elsewhere willing to work more cheaply, but by new labour-replacing, computer-driven systems of production and communication.
With no democratic input or accountability required for any step of this process of mass worker displacement and disemployment, corporations and investment capital can dismantle or move their operations across the world with the speed of an electronic signal. The vast majority of the planet's people have in this way been radically disempowered as an economic and political force--transformed into an international pool of part-time employees who can be hired and dismissed at will, with ever more people in the labour market competing for ever more replaceable jobs.
Globalized free trade has brought us to the age of disposable humanity.
The solution is to institute a "rule-based international economy" where the rules do not, as now, merely protect business interests and trade, but include minimum standards to protect workers' wages, health and safety, to safeguard the environment against pollution and degradation, and to provide a "social safety net" for the unemployed, the old, the young, the infirm, and others left out of the current global economy.
Most of the serious problems of the anarchic free trade economy would be significantly reduced by such a global-rule system. Unfortunately, the world's dominant corporations are opposed to the protection of any rights but their own. They have fiercely attacked public health care, unemployment insurance, old age pensions and social security programs as "too costly," "unworkable," "anti-private initiative," even "communist."
In the past, such programs have nevertheless been provided because of their widespread popularity and support within the general population. The difference now is that corporations are no longer tied to the community as a whole, and are free to leave any society in which effective rules and programs to protect human rights and the environment have the effect of raising business costs.
Now that business has secured the right to invest or disinvest at will across national boundaries with no social obligations, rules protecting human life have to be international to be effective. If they are not, business will simply move to the lowest-cost, lowest-standard areas to maximize profits. Effective international rules protecting people and the environment must therefore be included in transnational trade agreements to bind corporations to wider interests than their own profits. Once such trade deals include life-protective standards--not as now by token "side-agreements" without legal force, but by specific and enforceable regulations--corporations would be obliged to comply in order to continue having access to the national markets covered by these agreements.
Two benefits would flow from such a regulatory balancing of the rights of corporations with the rights of people. First of all, the current corporate agenda of reducing or dismantling the social standards of civilization "to compete in the tough new international marketplace" would be diminished in its capacity to extort social sacrifices for lower business costs.
Secondly, the ability of dictatorships and oligarchies abroad to resist international pressure to improve human rights and environmental standards within their borders would be eliminated. Their access to other countries' markets would be conditional on their compliance with international social and environmental standards.
Unfortunately, it is not easy to be optimistic about the chances of educating free market adherents to the most elementary requirements of social existence. Private corporations and business-dominated governments have so far imposed against majority will a series of undebated, secretly-negotiated, business-only trade agreements which have disemployed and disempowered millions, ruined communities, and cut back social legislation across the developed world without a noticeable dissenting voice from a single political party in the process.
(Click title to go to story)
Homeowners walking away
And so, faced with the prospect of being underwater on his mortgage — owing more than the unit is worth — for the next 20 years, Duque, 33, made what seemed to him like a rational choice: to cut and...
-------------------------------
Minority areas more polluted
Milwaukee and its suburbs ranked seventh among cities where a disproportionate amount of pollutants fell more on low-income neighborhoods than in more affluent areas. via JSOnline.
-------------------------------
Tenants Fear Inspections
Letters to tenants say apartment inspectors will be looking for fire and safety code violations, via WNYC .
-------------------------------
Putting a face on the pain of foreclosure
In this gloomy economy, foreclosures are rampant. About 600 cases a month are being filed in Milwaukee County alone. Wisconsin set a record last year when 25,588 actions were started. via JSOnline.
-------------------------------
Quote of the Day
When eating a fruit, think of the one who planted the tree. - Vietnamese saying
If we can't afford health care now, what will happen when Obama gets 103 mill.more immigrants? Why do health costs seem
to be driven up on purpose?
a) Even in "advanced" socialism like Australia you can't get free emergency care without a health card. Here, millions of aliens, poor,
and tightwads get free care in emergency rooms; Its the law. It was done on purpose... Like shoplifting in stores, it drives up prices
for all. Obama Care won't ask if people are citizens, let alone require it. It buys votes - at your expense. If you think that's bad, his
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act allows 103 million to come here in the next 20 yrs...
:http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1076.cfm
b) Medical Malpractice suits with outrageous rewards and huge rates for malpractice insurance cost us $200 billion /yr
in health-care costs. Serious tort reform could help 300 mill. Americans. A Democrat-controlled congress resisted reforms.
Trial lawyers are big Dem. contributors ... :plime.com/l/133838-history/1/
Last, the crime of Medicare (ONLY) fraud is BIGGER than the drug business in total volume!... Medicare and Medicaid
fraud takes aprx $90 bill./yr from taxpayers with a billing scam that's VERY EASY to execute... http://www.cbsnews.com/
stories/2009/10/23/60minutes/main5414390.shtml ... WHY HAS FRAUD BEEN IGNORED FOR SO LONG?!
Was our medical care system sabotaged to create a crisis? -to bring in gov't-run health? & make us so mad, we'd hardly
question their "CHANGE" ? ...ALL the bills START with gov't-run health....What are Obama's SHOCKING plans? See
breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance ...
The economy too. Blame socialist policies for the financial crisis. We aren't even close to being a free-market.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5455 ... A true free market has a higher standard of living (like Singapore
& Hong Kong) :Nobel Laureate economist, Milton Friedman.
We'll have nada if we don't stop Obama Care...Reid's can still get a PUBLIC OPTION! It depends on the political
environment outside Washington. If the bill is only marginally unpopular (the current 40-55%), it'll probably pass.
But if public opinion moves aprx 5 points (to 35-60 against), moderates will probably refuse to cave in.
:REID'S BAIT-&-SWITCH TACTICS, S FL CL, 10-29.
STOP NATIONALIZATION OF HEALTH, IRREVERSIBLE, HARDCORE SOCIALISM ! Tell your
congressmen, especially Blue Dog Dem's, to vote no or you'll support their opposition - & DON'T LET UP.
It's our only chance! :Mark Levin, Conservative Talk Radio host, lawyer & author of 'Liberty & Tyranny'. Email, write or
CALL TOLL FREE: 1-877-851-6437 or 1-800-962-3524 or...1-202-225-3121 toll...If you don’t know their names,
give your zip code to the operator...Call early. Write / email... A Guide to Calling Congress :dreamact.info/node/8463...
Tell friends...POST! ...Get the word out!...If the US is "asleep", isn't it because liberals control BIG media?
(not to mention schools & universities)...POST!
OBAMA"S OWN WORDS: “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program...
That’s what I’d like to see, but as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to
take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
(which they've done) :'03; breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/
PS: Insurance? Which insurance company gave 30% kickbacks to unions in most states? If schools even try to
change insurance a union threatens a strike...A guards' union President! SABOTAGED planes' fuel gauges! ...
Union Brass want the 3-R's REPLACED WITH FEEL-GOODISM. (For 40 years now!)... If foreigners were
doing this to us all hell would break loose!...Those in private schools pay taxes too..:STRANGLEHOLD. How
Union Bosses Have HIJACKED OUR GOVERNMENT by Reed Larson, ’99.
1)" President Bush tried to discredit and minimize an entire news organization because he didn’t like how they portray his policies. Nope that’s Obama; sorry for the confusion. "
He didn't have to RETARD this is what he did instead.............
From the beginning of his presidential quest, George W. Bush was protected from unscripted and potentially challenging interactions with the American people. And as his presidency has unraveled, the White House returned to his tried and true technique of reality-avoidance. As the New York Times reported on October 15:
Mr. Bush found nothing but admirers Monday when he answered questions during a town-hall-style meeting.
One man began by commending Mr. Bush "on your steadfastness and your faith." Another concluded by saying, "Thank you for being my president for the last seven years," with an emphasis on the word "my." A third expressed dismay that Mr. Bush could not run for president again.
Of course, when in doubt, the Secret Service is only too happy to oblige by ejecting - and sometimes arresting - those whose dissent creates discomfort for the President.
While his FEMA staff recently held a fake press conference, President Bush does the equivalent on a regular basis. As Dana Milbank of the Washington Post noted in the run-up to the Iraq war, "The president followed a script of names in choosing which reporters could ask him a question, and he received generally friendly questioning." As Peter Johnson wrote in USA Today on March 10, 2003:
Some notables - including Time, Newsweek, USA TODAY, The Washington Post and Hearst columnist Helen Thomas - were never called on, leading to all sorts of buzz in the press corps. Follow-up questions, a White House tradition, were non-existent.
USA TODAY White House reporter Larry McQuillan, seated in the front row, stopped raising his hand after he realized that Bush - who himself used the word "scripted" during the news conference to describe what was going on - was calling on names from a list and not deviating from it.
President Bush continues to use the "planted question" tactic to great effect. As ThinkProgress reported in September, Bush turned to Bill Sammon formerly of his echo chamber, the Washington Times, for the final question of a press conference. Sammon obliged by serving up a criticism of MoveOn for its "General Betray Us" ad for Bush to hit out of the park. "I thought the ad was disgusting," Bush said, adding, "I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. military."
When ersatz journalists like Sammon were unavailable, the White House was quick to call on gay escort turned press corps fixture, Jeff Gannon. Among his duties for the right-wing news media group Talon News, Gannon teed up presidential softballs, including his January 26, 2005 classic:
"How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people [the Democratic leadership] -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"
Consistent and disciplined stage management, of course, is just the beginning of elaborate facade created for George W. Bush, the Potemkin President. From rented reporters, purchased pundits, and rigged rallies to scripted sessions, fake news and pseudo-science, an unapologetic White House has sought to alter public perceptions to control political debate - and reality itself.
1) President Bush tried to discredit and minimize an entire news organization because he didn’t like how they portray his policies. Nope that’s Obama; sorry for the confusion.
2) President Bush supports legislation which would take the right of a secret ballot away from workers who may or may not wish to join a union. Nope Obama again. And really RTG you should be the first to cry foul since you often profess how poorly big business hurts the little guy – like unions are better.
3) President Bush under the spirit of competition and free markets wants to stop insurance companies from adding new health care polices and force people into the public option. Nope that is actually the administration and Obama. Again, sorry for the confusion.
4) Bush had FCC staff members that openly argue to limit free speech over the air waves and internet and praise the tactics used by a Venezuela dictator.
5) Bush supports legislation which would devastate the economies of states like Wisconsin buy instituting a cap and trade program. Nope –Obama. It should be noted that CA., whose senator wrote the bill, will be able to produce more co2 emission then they currently do under this legislation. If this was a real policy change shouldn’t every one’s co2 emissions be cut? Why are mid-west states required to cut c02 while costal states can create more. That seems like a fair program.
The Green Bay Packers were financially successful last year, but not as profitable as the team's on-field success would seem to indicate.
The National Football League's only publicly-owned team reported operating revenue of $241 million for the last fiscal year, an increase of almost 11 percent.
Net income was $23.3 million, a 6 percent increase, but profit from operations, which does not include investment income or provisions for taxes, fell to $22 million from $34 million.
"It was a strong financial year, but it was not what you would have thought, given our success on the field," said Mark Murphy, the team's president and chief executive officer. "Revenue was up 10 percent, but expenses were up at a rate twice that."
Murphy, treasurer Larry Weyers and vice president of finance Vicki Vannieuwenhoven discussed the Packers' financial results on Friday, an annual overview given in advance of the team's shareholders' meeting, which will be July 24.
The Packers are the only NFL team whose finances are made public. The team's stock is not traded, and does not increase in value or pay dividends. The 111,000 shareholders elect the organization's board of directors.
The Packers were 13-3 last season and won their division and a home playoff game before losing to the New York Giants in the NFC championship game at Lambeau Field.
Murphy said player costs, the team's biggest expense, traditionally have been covered by national revenue, primarily television contracts. Those costs, however, are rising at a faster rate than revenue, he said. It's a trend that concerns the Packers and was responsible for NFL owners' recent decision to opt out of the collective bargaining agreement with the players union.
Total operating expenses were $219.9 million, up from $183.8 million. Of that, player costs were $124.7 million, a 13 percent increase over the previous year. Player costs were $102.8 million two years ago.
"Player expenses were up more than national revenue. That does concern us. It puts more pressure on local revenue," Weyers said.
Local revenue is important to teams, because it doesn't have to be shared with other franchises. It is the only area where a team can increase income on its own.
The Packers renovated Lambeau Field five years ago to be able to increase their local revenue, something other NFL teams are doing as well.
Where the Packers' revenue ranks in relation to other NFL teams matters, because it determines revenue sharing payments. The top revenue producers make an additional payment. Last year, the Packers ranked 11th in the 32-team league. They were seventh the year before and 10th for several years before that.
Team officials have said the Packers must rank near the top middle of the revenue producers to remain competitive.
Vannieuwenhoven said the team is "probably close" to where it wants to be, but the NFL will not release this year's rankings until the fall.
Success on the field traditionally means more income for the Packers, and last year was no exception.
"We were tracking ahead of budget early on," Vannieuwenhoven said.
Local revenue increased to $105 million from $93 million, continuing evidence that the renovated Lambeau Field is doing the job, Weyers said.
He said local revenue is becoming a larger percentage of the whole.
"That's consistent with where we need to be," Weyers said.
He attributed the increase to the regular-season performance, two home playoff games, Brett Favre's retirement and the renovation of the Packers Pro Shop. The Pro Shop was expanded and checkouts added last year.
The Pro Shop Game Day store on the west side of the stadium is being expanded for this season.
The Packers no longer report Pro Shop revenue separately from that of other sales and marketing efforts, but Weyers said sales and marketing revenue increased to $50 million from $40 million the year before.
"The Pro Shop carried the majority of that increase," he said.
Pro Shop revenue was $17.5 million for 2005-06, and a little less than $16 million for 2006-07. Weyers said this year's sales were a record.
Murphy said retail and Internet sales continue to provide opportunity for increasing income.
The Packers added $2 million to its Franchise Preservation Fund, bringing that account to $127.5 million. Initially, the goal was to put aside enough cash to operate the team for a year. Those costs have grown faster than the fund, and at any rate, Weyers said, team officials aren't sure the fund would be enough.
"We may need substantial resources in the future," he said.
Estimated operating expenses increased to $151 million from $137 million in the last year.
Murphy said that under current collective bargaining agreement provisions, 2010 could be a year without a salary cap and 2011 could see a work stoppage, mostly likely a player lockout.
"That's where something like this will help us. We would not have revenue, but we would continue to have expenses," Murphy said.
The Preservation Fund contribution of $2 million was smaller than in previous years — it was $10 million in 2006-07 — but the Packers also purchased 15 acres around Lambeau Field, which Weyers said they consider to be preservation-related. The Packers have not determined how the land will be used, but Murphy said they are talking to municipalities about development possibilities.
"The basic idea is to develop around the stadium and drive visitors to the area," Murphy said.
"In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, "... Michelle Obama
No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn't perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession.
Just think, Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhowe had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary.
Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers:
Mamie Eisenhower : 1 paid for personally out of President's salary
Jackie Kennedy: 1
Roseline Carter: 1
Barbara Bush: 1
Hilary Clinton: 3
Laura Bush: 1
Michele Obama: 22
How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Ms Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU, John Q. Public:
Michele Obama's personal staff:
1.. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lel yveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samanth a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
(total = $1,591,200 in annual salaries)
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe .
DOPE SLAPPED, BODY SLAMMED, AND BAGGED BY A GROCERY CLERK!!! Was that PAPER or PLASTIC???
LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!
LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!
LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!
//////////////////////////////////////
Was it awesome? If you are an indoctrinated 13 year old, yes, or if you like critiquing your own posts, like RTG/Mr L has for the last few days.
I especially like your imaginary friend, and your new found respect for him.
You call that poetry, it reminded me of the monkey poem Obama wrote in college
The only hate I see on this board spews from RTG/MR.L.Soo much hate and anger that he pounds all his letters out in enormous font, 24/7 I might add.
The LOL's and font changes remind me of my 12 year old daughter's communications.
I don't care if RTG/MR L. is an ex MPS teacher, he acts like one of the students.
BTW, another great proofread job, can you do mine now genius? I find your plagiarism skills much more egregious than a simple spelling error.
No RTG, everyone here does not plagiarize, you are the only one. You set yourself up with the question, told yourself to take your time answering, waited a few hours, and copy and pasted several authors opinions, claiming them as your own. You are just like every other Lib on this planet, a dishonest, hateful, bigoted, racist!
What day is it MR L?
"Apparently, your education didn't go far enough towards quelling your obvious hate"........... "I don't give a shit about your education, or your profession"............ "You still come off as a loud mouthed fuck".......... "Quiet" and "Quite" are two different words, re your first educated black man post".............Example: "It would be QUITE nice if you would be QUIET".
DOPE SLAPPED, BODY SLAMMED, AND BAGGED BY A GROCERY CLERK!!! Was that PAPER or PLASTIC???
Milwaukee County foreclosure database
Posted: 31 Oct 2009 09:53 AM PDT
You can now search more than 11,000 foreclosed properties that were scheduled for Milwaukee County Sheriff’s sale from January 2007 through this September. Some properties marked...
-------------------------------
The only thing we differ on is whether or not we should be there. There is no doubt what so ever that both circumstances present a most precarious predicament for our nation's well being and the future of that region's role, as it relates to natural resources and our need for oil in the years ahead.
I side with those who promote moving away from our dependence for fossil fuels. Not only because of its detriment to the long term health of the World's ecology but also because OIL IS A FINITE COMMODITY whose need will slowly diminish as more and more nation's come to realize the need to move towards something more bountiful, renewable and accessible to all the World's nation's. So the question becomes one of what makes more sense, fighting, dying, and all the costs associated with the quest for a finite resource or looking for other solutions that will lead to a more secure long term solution. A quest I would argue that could lead to new major breakthroughs in energy science and who knows what else. Did you happen to see the piece on PBS's NOW program last night and what the Netherlands is doing to become energy independent? Part of the program dealt with an electric car concept I read about in a Wired magazine article a couple of years ago envisioned by a social entrepreneur Shai Agassi and his company called Better Place. Here's a link you can check out if you're interested. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/544/index.html His concept is based on lithium battery swapping stations that can change out a car's battery in approximately 40 seconds, a lot less time than it takes to fill up a gas tank. Are these ideas and technologies lacking in one way or another? Sure but you have to start somewhere and small steps lead to big ones with improvements along the way.