This isn't "mirving," it's just a question and a opinion, nothing personal. I am curious just how "well-intentioned" you think those who caused the "uninteded consequences" really were? What I mean is, how "well-intentioned" was it to force sub prime loans and threaten people with serious penaties if they didn't loan them, when they were actively warned of a "finacial crisis" and eventual "recession" if they continued their masquerade for over 7 years? I agree with 99% of what you say here, and think it was well put, I just don't hold the opinion that it was unintended once the political and monitary gains were recognized. Both reps and dems, but mostly dems. In fact, some of them are now the ones asking questions (Dodd!) when they were part of the problem!

Good post Pat

You know what would really tick off the Democrats?

Bush should resign now.

Then Dick Cheney becomes President (that would really [censored] OFF the liberals)!!!

Cheney then appoints Condoleeza Rice as VP.

Cheney quickly resigns and VP Condoleeza Rice, A Republican, becomes the first BLACK President and the first WOMAN President !!!

^ ^ Random internet joke that I thought was too funny to not share.... :)

I'm Canadian. What ever you do you don't want a government run health system. My mother sat in a hospital waiting room for 12 hrs because she could not pee (she had ovarian cancer). A fan at a hockey game who got his jaw broken sat in a hospital for 35 hrs before he was fixed up. He could have driven from Ottawa to Syracuse and had it fixed in 1/2 the time. But its free....LOL, nope. We get taxed out our [censored] here. Income, gas, when we buy stuff. Then have to beg the government for lousy service to get or money back in the form of health service. Try getting a doctor in Ontario, Mine is useless, I want a new one, but there are no new ones. They go to the USA because socialized medicine does not work for a [censored].

WWI
WWII
Nuking an already destroyed Japan
Korea
Escalation of Vietnam
The Fed and the 16th amendment
3 military drafts
Creation of the military industrial complex
The so called documentary "An inconvenient truth"
All created by democrats--Cant wait to see what change will bring our brothers south of the border. Maybe he will put Ron Paul into the presidency some how. Now that's change for the good!

Oh ya, and a good % of our tax goes to quebec because they are "special"

Anyone reading "Liberal Fascism " out there? Awesome book.

You know what would really tick off the Democrats?

Bush should resign now.

Then Dick Cheney becomes President (that would really [censored] OFF the liberals)!!!

Cheney then appoints Condoleeza Rice as VP.

Cheney quickly resigns and VP Condoleeza Rice, A Republican, becomes the first BLACK President and the first WOMAN President !!!

^ ^ Random internet joke that I thought was too funny to not share.... :)



Another funny one floating around is the idea of Hillary turning down the Sec. of State job by saying "There is just too much corruption associated with the incoming administration!" LOL :D

Wow, I just read two great posts, one by Pat "Filthy Feet" Brunner and another by a Canadian (BTW, Ron Paul does have a pretty good following in Canada) They get it, they have seen it.

Shoot, the PM of Canada shut down his own parliament so his economic policies would not get a vote of "No Confidence".

here is some more "Change" you can believe in

Obama's atomic umbrella: U.S. nuclear strike if Iran nukes Israel (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1045687.html)


Obama said this week that he would negotiate with Iran and would offer economic incentives for Tehran to relinquish its nuclear program. He warned that if Iran refused the deal, he would act to intensify sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Interesting

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HtDSwyCPEsQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HtDSwyCPEsQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://www.texasinsider.org/images/news/cartoons/Ramirez010609.jpg

Obama: Geithner situation an 'embarrassment' (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95N4JF00&amp;show_article=1)

I love this, Obama chooses a guy who didn't pay 34K in taxes to run the IRS. From what I can tell, he didn't even know he still owed taxes until the Obama team was vetting him :o

Yea, I have a lot of confidence in this guy to run our Treasury

I wish this was a joke

The most expensive inauguration in US history (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5519506.ece) (skip to the bottom of the article on the Inauguration)

The liberal media was up in arms when the 2004 Inauguration cost $40 million.

To make matters worse, President Bush declared a state of emergency so it frees up unlimited cash for the Inauguration.

Pizza god, you shunned the so called "fear tactics" that warned about so many aspects of an Obama team (including who he'd surround himself with) and now you sarcastically poo poo how it is played out? You're gonna mock the "change" that was spelled out to you in those so called "fear tactics" even before he is even president? When he does take office and you see the warnings against him play out even more, what will you do then? When you said "I don't have the time to read Obama's books," who were you kidding?

Very often you spoke out against Obama. But other times, like above, you turned a blind eye or worse, you defended him by making the warnings into meaningless election propoganda and now you mock the warnings that come true. I dunno man. I am not trying to be mean, but SOMETIMES it just seems like you want it both ways or something. Feel free to post a video that shows I am wrong! LOL

This is how I started this thread.


Well, it is official, Obama wins the 2008 election in a surprisingly close race.

It will be interesting to see how an Obama presidency will change the USA. We do need change, however I am not positive Obama is going to change it for the better.

If Obama gets what he wants, we will truly live in the USSA.



I am sorry if I am critical of things that have been said about Obama. I would not even repeat many of the accusation about him being born in Kenya (BTW, after lots of research, I will not be satisfied until Obama releases his actual Birth Certificate.)

I will post articles about Bill Richardson, Rod Blagojevich, and Timothy Geithner because they are all related to Obama in one way or another. This is what the Democrats have been doing for the last 8 years. Payback is a [censored].

This is how I started this thread.


Well, it is official, Obama wins the 2008 election in a surprisingly close race.

It will be interesting to see how an Obama presidency will change the USA. We do need change, however I am not positive Obama is going to change it for the better.

If Obama gets what he wants, we will truly live in the USSA.



I am sorry if I am critical of things that have been said about Obama. I would not even repeat many of the accusation about him being born in Kenya (BTW, after lots of research, I will not be satisfied until Obama releases his actual Birth Certificate.)

I will post articles about Bill Richardson, Rod Blagojevich, and Timothy Geithner because they are all related to Obama in one way or another. This is what the Democrats have been doing for the last 8 years. Payback is a [censored].



Here, I'll make this simple Pizza:

You were warned of this. You criticized that warning. Now you mock that warning coming true!

Apologizing for being "critical of things that have been said about Obama" is not necessary, relative or helpful to the point I made. It's your being critical of those warnings and now being critical of them coming true that makes no sense! You've been "out riding fences for so long now" that you don't even get saddle sore! Those who "warned" the loudest have every right to point this out. In part, Obama is going to be president now because of such reasoning. Pick a bit and run with it Desperado. You can't have it both ways.

BTW, as the warnings that you mocked come true, the "payback" you post becomes a two way street.

I guess I don't see it.

I don't by into spin, or at least try to see it when it is thrown in front of me.

There are many things I don't post because of the sources.

The more I look into who Obama has appointed into his administration, the more I worry less about change and more about the corruption. All you have to do is look at Obama's Secretary of State. I view her as more corrupt than Chaney.

I stated that before the election, we could only attack what he has said he would do. After the election we should attack what he has done. Therefore I am now pointing out things he does that I do not like or disagree with. It is going to be a long 4 years....

I think you do...

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0cpzLOk4jFY&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0cpzLOk4jFY&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

Just a short time from right now.

AP live feed

AP live Feed (http://news.aol.com/main/politics/inauguration/live-video)

I am getting a better feed from Justin TV CNN page

http://www.justin.tv/nomitus

The Justin TV feed is great, I can even get full screen without stops

It's done, no more Bush

Now for his speech which I am sure I will post here eventually

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss

It's done, no more Bush



ding dong the witch is dead!

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss



True, so true

I am watching our new president walk in the parade right now.

It was funny, no one single phone call before or during Obama's speech, yet as soon as it was over, we got 2 calls right off the bat.

BTW, the market did not like today for some reason. The market has been slowly dropping the last few weeks as it is, but today it dropped more than 300 pts to close below 8,000

BTW, the market did not like today for some reason. The market has been slowly dropping the last few weeks as it is, but today it dropped more than 300 pts to close below 8,000



Major market uncertainty... I just hope we have enough hot air to make the ballon rise again.

The Dow dropped 4% the most it has ever dropped on inauguration day :DOBAMA is already making changes :DHOPE he give the people the change they voted for :eek:

The Dow dropped 4% the most it has ever dropped on inauguration day :DOBAMA is already making changes :DHOPE he give the people the change they voted for :eek:



And you don't think it had anything to do with the proposed
Treasury Secretary's position that we should stop throwing money at the big banks and maybe use it a little more wisely and with some accountability. And yes, such a position will cause the Dow to drop, a pretty sad statement on the financial knowledge of the average American.

Why look, the Dow is back up today, let's see what are the headlines. Oh look Obama stepped into the Oval Orifice. That has to be the cause... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

BTW - I got out of bed today, the sun was shinin', I was still breathin' the world is still here as are the Jesus Freak bumper stickers on the freeway. So, when is the end coming? Just Curious.

http://www.texasinsider.org/images/news/cartoons/Ramirez012109.jpg

http://msunderestimated.com/2009/01/21/daily-show-what-differences-between-bush-obama-video/

http://msunderestimated.com/2009/01/21/daily-show-what-differences-between-bush-obama-video/



Yea, I noticed that in his speech too. It didn't give me any hope, the only thing I liked about what Obama said, he changed.

You Have to Love Our Media


And the beat goes on and the nay-sayers persist in their intractable
denial.

Headlines On Inauguration Day 4 Years Ago:


"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in
unarmored Humvees"


"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"

"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans
get the shaft"


Headlines regarding 2009 Inauguration:

"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"

"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"

"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"

"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"

* * * * * * * * * * *

Nothing like fair &amp; unbiased coverage of the news !!!

Very good article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249791178500439.html

Excerpt: "There is a dangerous trap being set here. The same media people invested in boosting a black man to the White House as a matter of history have set very high expectations for him. When he disappoints, as presidents and other human beings inevitably do, the backlash may be extreme." - Juan

The only thing I'd disagree with this is that the "backlash may be extreme." Just like those who denied the warnings by calling it biased "propoganda" but now criticize with glee how those warnings are coming true, the media will not volunteer, admit or even acknowledge their own hypocrisy easily.

So what have we learned in 2 millennia?
=====================================
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled,
public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be
tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be
curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work,
instead of living on public assistance."

Cicero - 55 BC
=====================================
Evidently we've learned nothing.

=====================================

So what have we learned in 2 millennia?
=====================================
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled,
public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be
tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be
curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work,
instead of living on public assistance."

Cicero - 55 BC
=====================================
Evidently we've learned nothing.

=====================================



yea, that is one of the things Ron Paul talks about. How the Roman Empire crumbled and we are doing nearly the exact same things.

Shoot, next thing we will be calling the Homeland Security head Cesar instead of Czar. :D

Obama has now done 4 things I agree with as President.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/martin%20rowson/2009/1/22/1232643516129/Barack-Obama-caps-his-pen-001.jpg

Obama lifts Bush's veil of secrecy: Repeals act to extend presidential records shield (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/22/obama-lifts-bushs-veil-of-secrecy/)

Obama signs order to close Guant�namo Bay (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/22/hillary-clinton-diplomatic-foreign-policy)
Barack Obama has signed an executive order to shut down the US military prison at Guant�namo Bay � the most potent symbol of excess in George Bush's "war on terror".

The new US president signed two other executive orders to review the use of military trials for terror suspects and ban the harshest interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding.



1st - Created some sunshine on the Presidency.
2nd - Closed Gimo, a black eye to us as a nation
3rd - reviewing the Military Trials for Terror suspects. (we must follow the Rule of Law)
4th - Banned torture.

Very good article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249791178500439.html

Excerpt: "There is a dangerous trap being set here. The same media people invested in boosting a black man to the White House as a matter of history have set very high expectations for him. When he disappoints, as presidents and other human beings inevitably do, the backlash may be extreme." - Juan

The only thing I'd disagree with this is that the "backlash may be extreme." Just like those who denied the warnings by calling it biased "propoganda" but now criticize with glee how those warnings are coming true, the media will not volunteer, admit or even acknowledge their own hypocrisy easily.


\
Wait! Wait! You're telling me that it's the media that has the mind control devices! And here I thought it was aliens. The truth of the matter is that what put a black man into office was the shear incompetence of the last government; that and the fact that he ran the most effective campaign that has occurred in our lifetimes. If you actually look at the media record, he got more coverage than McCain did, but whereas the media gave McCain 70% positive coverage, they gave Obama 70% negative coverage... funny that. You should also know that those with real power don't much care. Whether he be white, black, Harvard or Yale, as long as they have the money they will get their agenda met one way or the other. Welcome to the "New Capital Show," it's the same as the old capital show.

http://msunderestimated.com/2009/01/21/daily-show-what-differences-between-bush-obama-video/



Leave it to Bruce to post the only really funny, and factual post about the whole affair. Thanks!

Speaking of The Daily Show, watch John Oliver's piece from last night where he compares the election to landing on the moon. It is FUNNY!

Very good article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249791178500439.html

Excerpt: "There is a dangerous trap being set here. The same media people invested in boosting a black man to the White House as a matter of history have set very high expectations for him. When he disappoints, as presidents and other human beings inevitably do, the backlash may be extreme." - Juan

The only thing I'd disagree with this is that the "backlash may be extreme." Just like those who denied the warnings by calling it biased "propoganda" but now criticize with glee how those warnings are coming true, the media will not volunteer, admit or even acknowledge their own hypocrisy easily.


\
Wait! Wait! You're telling me that it's the media that has the mind control devices! And here I thought it was aliens. The truth of the matter is that what put a black man into office was the shear incompetence of the last government; that and the fact that he ran the most effective campaign that has occurred in our lifetimes. If you actually look at the media record, he got more coverage than McCain did, but whereas the media gave McCain 70% positive coverage, they gave Obama 70% negative coverage... funny that. You should also know that those with real power don't much care. Whether he be white, black, Harvard or Yale, as long as they have the money they will get their agenda met one way or the other. Welcome to the "New Capital Show," it's the same as the old capital show.



http://bernardmoon.blogspot.com/2008/10/pew-research-states-70-of-obamas.html

"Pew Research confirms that 70 percent of Obama's media coverage has been positive and 60 percent of McCain's has been negative."

Simple question Lyle: Where did you learn that "the media gave Obama 70% negative coverage?"

http://img5.glowfoto.com/images/2009/01/22-1732382585T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=22-173238L&amp;y=2009&amp;m=01&amp;t=jpg&amp;rand=2585&amp;srv=img5)

I think he was talking about Fox News :D

Doubt it. He doesn't have cable and I highly doubt he can back that insane percentage up anywhere.

Besides, the "positive" coverage of McCain on Fox News was around 40% and the "negative" coverage of B. Hussein Obama was around 40% as well.

Bottom line, he's from another planet to say Obama recieved 70% negative coverage. (edit...Except from me!)

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/indi..._100128045.html (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/obama-received-the-most-positive-campaign-news-coverage_100128045.html)

Taxpayer money SHOULD NOT be used to promote Abortions.

Obama Plans to Reverse Abortion Policy (http://news.aol.com/article/obama-plans-to-reverse-abortion-policy/315979)

So when Obama signs this Executive order, it will be the 1st time I disagreed with something he did in office.

The main reason, where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government can even give grants to these groups????

I'ts really funny to listen to Blagojevich's ramblings today and think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLHFdduVDVg&amp;feature=related

So when Obama signs this Executive order, it will be the 1st time I disagreed with something he did in office.



He's only been in office for three days, Pizza.....

Taxpayer money SHOULD NOT be used to promote Abortions.

Obama Plans to Reverse Abortion Policy (http://news.aol.com/article/obama-plans-to-reverse-abortion-policy/315979)

So when Obama signs this Executive order, it will be the 1st time I disagreed with something he did in office.

The main reason, where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government can even give grants to these groups????


Who had the "over" on 2 days?

I took the under.

A Red State take on this week

<object width="500" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hFNwKp6D93o&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hFNwKp6D93o&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="315"></embed></object>

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_bVzoNjKbEo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_bVzoNjKbEo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

http://www.texasinsider.org/images/news/cartoons/GaryVarvel013009.jpg

So what have we learned in 2 millennia?
=====================================
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled,
public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be
tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be
curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work,
instead of living on public assistance."

Cicero - 55 BC
=====================================
Evidently we've learned nothing.

=====================================



yea, that is one of the things Ron Paul talks about. How the Roman Empire crumbled and we are doing nearly the exact same things.

Shoot, next thing we will be calling the Homeland Security head Cesar instead of Czar. :D


The only reason the Roman Empire fell was because of an incurable disease brought from the north: Black Plague. If not for this crisis they didn't have the sophistication to solve at that point, it could have held on for another millennium barring something unexpected. We're no where near as strong as the Roman Empire.

We're no where near as strong as the Roman Empire.



We can nuke any place in the world within hours.

We have permanent military bases on every continent.

We have troops ready and waiting to invade or "dissuade" any country in the world within hours.

The US Dollar is the most common unit of currency used to trade oil, giving us control over most nations economies.

How was Rome stronger than us?

Ron Paul is Spot On

Forbes TalkBack: Economic Advice to Obama

<iframe src='http://www.forbes.com/video/embed/embed.html?show=79&format=frame&height=496&width=336&video=fvn/talkback/rk_vlog012309&mode=render' width='336px' height='496px' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0'></iframe>

We're no where near as strong as the Roman Empire.



We can nuke any place in the world within hours.

We have permanent military bases on every continent.

We have troops ready and waiting to invade or "dissuade" any country in the world within hours.

The US Dollar is the most common unit of currency used to trade oil, giving us control over most nations economies.

How was Rome stronger than us?



Rome didn't have a collared toga rule for A tiers!

What is it with several of the Obama appointees having Tax problems??????

Shoot, two more withdrew there names this week because of back taxes due they didn't pay.

Maybe if Obama gets all his buddies to pay their taxes the government could get out of the hole.

We have permanent military bases on every continent.



Do we have a military base in Antarctica?

We have permanent military bases on every continent.



Do we have a military base in Antarctica?



Yes and No, we have "Scientific Bases" in the Antarctic, but Military purposes would be illegal. These Scientific Bases do have members of the military manning them from time to time. Also our Navy does frequent the waters of the Antarctic.

Weird... I don't see Krasinski, McCaine, Teague, Bender and others defending this stimulus plan much. Hmmm, guess socialism (bigger government) really wasn't that hard to define or recognize after all. If only we could have been warned in some way...

We have permanent military bases on every continent.



Do we have a military base in Antarctica?



http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2009/02/03-1829078791T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=03-182907L&amp;y=2009&amp;m=02&amp;t=jpg&amp;rand=8791&amp;srv=img3)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uuwgHNtyD54&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uuwgHNtyD54&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://www.texasinsider.org/images/news/cartoons/Ramirez020509.jpg

Weird... I don't see Krasinski, McCaine, Teague, Bender and others defending this stimulus plan much. Hmmm, guess socialism (bigger government) really wasn't that hard to define or recognize after all. If only we could have been warned in some way...



I'm sorry, I'm getting your isms mixed up, which is it we're supposed to be scared of today, communism, terrorism, socialism, or conservatism. Funny how the conservatives weren't up in arms when we were giving away $700 billion to the banks with no questions asked. Apparently it's only when you create jobs and give money to the middle class that it bothers them. Of course all those rich conservatives were getting a bailout too so they weren't to bothered by it.

The best kind of sucker is one who keeps coming back to the trough.

At least this money - and I agree with player, there's way too much pork and garbage in this (like more tax breaks for the rich) - comes with some accountability.

BTW - watch the Daily Show from Thursday night. They have great video of Republicans arguing for billions for the bailout and their favorite programs and arguing that this is awful. You'd think they would at least be consistent.

BTW - for those that really think that the Rich Republicans are paying their taxes, Shirley you jest.

Funny how the conservatives weren't up in arms when we were giving away $700 billion to the banks with no questions asked



I beg to differ, I and nearly every Conservative I know was calling, emailing and even showing up to congressional offices trying to keep that bill from passing.

I am proud to say that My REPUBLICAN congressman voted against it both times.

However, I was very disappointed in my 2 State Senators, Sen John Cornyn is usually pretty good, but he got some Pork included in the bill for Hurricane Ike and voted for it.

This is why I voted against him in the general election.

Sen. Kay "Bailout" Hutchinson voted for it too, she also voted "Yea" on the Ledbetter Act and will probably vote for this bailout too. She will NOT be getting my vote for Governor, even if she wins in the Primaries.

Rasmussen Poll: Obama Approval Cut in Half (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/2/7/rasmussen-poll-obama-approval-cut-in-half.html?s_cid=rss%3Acapital-commerce%3Arasmussen-poll-obama-approval-cut-in-half)

<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i9kGYWF48qo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i9kGYWF48qo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

Weird... I don't see Krasinski, McCaine, Teague, Bender and others defending this stimulus plan much. Hmmm, guess socialism (bigger government) really wasn't that hard to define or recognize after all. If only we could have been warned in some way...



I'm sorry, I'm getting your isms mixed up, which is it we're supposed to be scared of today, communism, terrorism, socialism, or conservatism. Funny how the conservatives weren't up in arms when we were giving away $700 billion to the banks with no questions asked. Apparently it's only when you create jobs and give money to the middle class that it bothers them. Of course all those rich conservatives were getting a bailout too so they weren't to bothered by it.

The best kind of sucker is one who keeps coming back to the trough.

At least this money - and I agree with player, there's way too much pork and garbage in this (like more tax breaks for the rich) - comes with some accountability.

BTW - watch the Daily Show from Thursday night. They have great video of Republicans arguing for billions for the bailout and their favorite programs and arguing that this is awful. You'd think they would at least be consistent.



Now this stimulus plan makes perfect sense! Thank you comrade, you truly have a gift!

Funny how the conservatives weren't up in arms when we were giving away $700 billion to the banks with no questions asked



I beg to differ, I and nearly every Conservative I know was calling, emailing and even showing up to congressional offices trying to keep that bill from passing.

I am proud to say that My REPUBLICAN congressman voted against it both times.

However, I was very disappointed in my 2 State Senators, Sen John Cornyn is usually pretty good, but he got some Pork included in the bill for Hurricane Ike and voted for it.

This is why I voted against him in the general election.

Sen. Kay "Bailout" Hutchinson voted for it too, she also voted "Yea" on the Ledbetter Act and will probably vote for this bailout too. She will NOT be getting my vote for Governor, even if she wins in the Primaries.



As much as I disagree with RP on other topics, I think it's a disservice to him to just call him a republican considering the topic of economics. He's better described as conservative or constitution republican when it comes to anything fiscally related IMO. Personally, I like to consider myself a "constitutional conservative" and I see alot of that in RP. But I understand what your point was. Lyle drew no line of distiction between conservatism and republican.

Conservatism does not need to be redefined. Republican does. The two are rarely synonymous these days. Lyle probably knows this, but acknowleding it wouldn't help his rambling much. If he were a conservative, he'd understand the frustration republican voters feel when many republican leaders leave conservative principles behind after moving to Washington.

Kay "Bailout" Hutchinson may drop out from being a Senator and run for Texas Governor.

there are two candidates that have formed exploratory committees that I like.

Bill Lawrence (http://www.wbilllawrence.com/) from Flower Mound. I know him from the Denton County Republican Executive Committee and have talked with him a few times. I started up our first conversation because he was carrying Ron Paul's book, "Foreign Policy of Freedom" He was not a Ron Paul supporter, however he was reading up on his Foreign Policy. I can only hope he was influenced by the book.

And

Michael Williams (http://www.williamsfortexas.com/) from Lubbock. I first saw him speak at the Texas Straw Poll and he won me over then. I was not all that impressed with his speech at the RNC though. I have already been in contact with the steering committee trying to figure out where he stands on Federal Issues.

I was watching Huckabee the other night and he asked her flat out, yes or no and she said "yes" to running for Gov... Of course saying it and doing it are not always the same thing in politics...

This is actually funny, the leader of the CPUSA (Communist Party USA) views on the Obama administration.

Communist: Obama working to nationalize U.S. economy (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=88380)

If KBH runs for Governor, Bill White will be the next Senator from Texas.

Not in Texas. John Sharp or Noriega (if he runs again) will get the nod from the Democrats. (Both are Moderate Democrats)

White may be popular in Houston, but Texas is a DEEP Red State.

but Texas is a DEEP Red State.



Um, not anymore. Recent Gallup poll analysis... (with link to actual poll) (http://blogs.chron.com/kuffsworld/2009/02/that_gallup_poll_of_partisan_p.html)

By 2012, Texas will be solidly purple. Permanent snowbirds and minorities....


If Noriega runs, then the Republicans ought not to field a candidate. After all, if he can show like he did with no fundraising against the NYC darling Cornyn, what will he do when he gets some national attention?

Lets see, If I am not mistaken,

In Texas
Both Senators are Republican (although I could argue Hutchinson)
Every statewide office is held by a Republican
Republicans have a majority in both the House and Senate in Austin.
20 of the 32 Congressmen are from the Republican Party (it was 19 last year, the Republicans gained a seat)

I will admit that ground was lost, but look at what Bush and the Neo-Con's have done to the Party as a whole. I can tell you for a fact that it was very hard to get people to vote for McCain this last year. Most viewed him as more of the same. those that voted for McCain mostly voted for Palin (the most requested sign in my precinct)

2008 Presidential Election

County Map (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html)

Be sure to check out the interactive "county bubbles" which is kind of cool......and the "voting shifts" which is very interesting.

As most of you know, last night the Senate voted for Closure on the "Stimulus bill"

This is a list of Economists that do not agree with Obama that this is a good idea.


"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."

� PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.


Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

The List (http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/alternate_version.html)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/907aj9ZX0B4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/907aj9ZX0B4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

If this so called "Stimulus" plan was going to work, then why did the Dow go down nearly 400 points today to end at $7888.88???

If the stimulus had been a good plan, the Dow would have risen.

If this so called "Stimulus" plan was going to work, then why did the Dow go down nearly 400 points today to end at $7888.88???

If the stimulus had been a good plan, the Dow would have risen.



I guess you missed Geithner's presser about the TARP money. The idea that the banks might actually be held accountable for their actions sent a wave of fear through the investors -- they might be forced to spend only 1 week in Aspen this year instead of 3. And the fact it was a very vague plan laid out -- the whole thing seemed rushed -- allowed Wall Street to assume the worst.

But no, it couldn't have been that.

Heard this morning that they want to add 2 TRILLION to the bailout package! WTF

From the web, February 6, 2009:

Tonight financial advisor and talk show host, Dave Ramsey put out a stimulus plan: give every employer that has a net gain of employees at the end of the year (that is he hires more people than are let go) a $20,000 tax credit per employee. That is a tax credit, not a tax deduction. How many businesses would hire people? Pretty much all of them.
Also give a $20,000 tax credit to anyone that buys a house. That's a tax credit, not a deduction. How many people would be buying a house? Everyone that could afford it (the afford it criteria is one that should have been applied before all this mess).
This plan would cost the government approximately $60 Billion; a far cry less than $800 Billion. And it would work unlike the garbage being sold to the American people at present. The one we'll get will cost our grandchildren. The "stimulus" or rather, by Obama's own admission, the "spending" package we're going to get is so huge and overblown we'll never get out from under it.

Check this out

Putin Warns US About Socialsm (http://www.therightperspective.org/?p=1472)


Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise �excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state�s omnipotence�.

Putin also cautioned the US against using military Keynesianism to lift its economy out of recession, saying, �in the longer run, militarization won�t solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily.

Ok, on Friday, I signed the NoStimulus.com on-line petition. There were less than 100K at the time. As of right now there has been 404,837 signers.

http://www.nostimulus.com/

this thing has not passed yet, you can still make a difference.

An email I just got from my Congressman, Kenny Marchant.



Special Bulletin: February 12, 2009

H.R. 1: Not the Bold Plan Americans Need

Following are some very tentative quick facts on the trillion-dollar �stimulus� spending deal slated to be rushed through the House and Senate tomorrow or Saturday. These are based on best estimates on legislative text and scoring and may be subject to revision.

1. Generational Theft. The final agreement will cost each and every household more than $6,500 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.

2. Paltry Tax Relief for Working Families and Small Businesses. The �Making Work Pay� tax credit at the center of the plan amounts to $1.10 a day, not even enough to ride the bus one-way to work. According to the Associated Press, �Officials estimated [the bill�s tax relief provisions] would mean about $13 a week more in people�s paychecks when withholding tables are adjusted in late spring. Critics say that�s unlikely to do much to boost consumption.� (Taylor, Andrew; �Economic stimulus package on track for final votes,� Associated Press, 12 Feb 09). While the specifics remain unknown, it appears likely that tax relief to help small businesses � the primary engine of American job creation � represents even less of a share of the final tax package, and it had been only a tiny percentage of the overall package to begin with.

3. Massive Government Expansion. The final agreement is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.

4. A Trillion-Dollar Spending Bill. The $789.5 billion final agreement slated for a House vote either today or tomorrow will exceed more than $1 trillion when adding in the interest of approximately $300 billion between 2009-2019.

5. Unnecessary Spending That Won�t Create Jobs. Apparently included in the final �jobs� bill is money for plug-in vehicles, money for STD prevention, and money for ACORN (via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program and CDBG program). The final agreement also creates new programs and funds existing programs that can be used to fund earmarks and pork-barrel projects.

?????
All over the news
Julio the Burger Flipper
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/01MNZBTt4K4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/01MNZBTt4K4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Ok, I very much doubt he is paying any taxes to begin with working at McDonalds. He question was if Obama was going to Socialize the country.

Obama answered that he would get Tax Credits.

Ah, I doubt he pays taxes, so Obama is going to give him YOUR money to pay for his schooling. (of course the government has been giving me your money too)

Speaking of which, It looks like I had a pretty good year (compared to the last few) and I doubt I get much EIC this year.

That is fine with me because I want to get back to the point of getting to pay taxes again so I can complain about them. :D

So Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination for the Commerce Secretary (a position he voted to abolish many years ago)

but that is not the reason why, not paying taxes was not the reason(2 withdraws so far), possible ethics violations was not the reason(Bill Richardson for this same position), not being able to agree with Obama and his stimulus package was the real reason.

My hat is off to Judd Gregg, who stood up for his principles.

Now that the Obama administration has pushed through Congress its $800 billion deficit-spending economic stimulus plan, the American sheeple are largely unaware that the true deficit of the federal government is already measured in trillions of dollars. In fact, its $65.5 trillion in total obligations exceeds the gross domestic product of the world.

We are waiting for the world to decide we are too big to fail and bail us out......

In fact, its $65.5 trillion in total obligations exceeds the gross domestic product of the world.



In fact, the total U.S. Federal debt is just under $11 trillion. Your number includes present value of future benefits owed by Medicare and Social Security.

Meanwhile, at the end of the third quarter of 2008 (latest data available (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/z1r-5.pdf)) U.S. total household and non-profit assets were 71.1 trillion and U.S. total household and non-profit net worth was 56.54 trillion. This is down from a high of 63.63 trillion at the end of the third quarter of 2007.

The net worth of U.S. non-farm non-financial corporate businesses was 161.23 trillion at the end of Q3, 2008.

$78,360,000,000,000

This is the GDP of the World in 2008 according to the CIA World Factbook.

$54,584,918,000,000 in 2007 according to the International Monetary Fund.

The quote I said came from the IMF numbers.

The $65,500,000,000,000 includes all obligations the government has promised. That comes from our own government.



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/misc/deficittwo.jpg

:confused:

Not sure of the point of your most recent post. Does it in any way contradict, qualify, or clarify my own? Do you dispute that your "65.5 trillion in total obligations" includes present value of future Medicare and Social Security benefits? If so, please take time to understand the source of the column in your table labelled "GAAP Federal Negative Net Worth" (GAAP = "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles")

In fact, its $65.5 trillion in total obligations exceeds the gross domestic product of the world.



In fact, the total U.S. Federal debt is just under $11 trillion. Your number includes present value of future benefits owed by Medicare and Social Security.

Meanwhile, at the end of the third quarter of 2008 (latest data available (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/z1r-5.pdf)) U.S. total household and non-profit assets were 71.1 trillion and U.S. total household and non-profit net worth was 56.54 trillion. This is down from a high of 63.63 trillion at the end of the third quarter of 2007.

The net worth of U.S. non-farm non-financial corporate businesses was 161.23 trillion at the end of Q3, 2008.



Then maybe you didn't read my post, or I didn't read yours.

This is the estimate of the National Debt
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif

From my understanding, Stimulus bill just increased our National debt limit to 12 Trillion, but I am unable to find that. I know the Wall Street Bailout increased it to 11.3 Trillion.

The GAO (Government Accountability Office) has been warning us that our government obligations are growing at an alarming pace.

Watch the Movie "I.O.U.S.A"

The Quote I stated used the recent GAO numbers compared to the GDP (Gross Domestic Product).

The Gross Domestic Product is the market value of all final goods and services from a nation in a given year.

So in other words, our government owes (including future obligations) more than what every Nation Produced last year (At least in the 2007 numbers)

Now where I got that quote is from the World Net Daily, in an article by Jerome Corsi. Because I figured that out after you replied, I had to verify his numbers. (I am not a Jerome Corsi fan by any means)

There was nothing in my post that was false, if so, please point it out because I verifies all the information. (if you base it on the IMF data from 2007, I looked at there data from 2008, but didn't feel like adding it up all together)

:confused:

Not sure of the point of your most recent post. Does it in any way contradict, qualify, or clarify my own? Do you dispute that your "65.5 trillion in total obligations" includes present value of future Medicare and Social Security benefits? If so, please take time to understand the source of the column in your table labelled "GAAP Federal Negative Net Worth" (GAAP = "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles")



Supporting documentation on my post, I didn't dispute anything from your post, only that you didn't read mine quite right.

BTW, this is Dave Walker, formally the U.S. Comptroller General of the GAO.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KjZBOCAgR64&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KjZBOCAgR64&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

he left the GAO to make the movie he talks about in this interview.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lZ9U0JlukSM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lZ9U0JlukSM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Why do you say I didn't read your post correctly?

<font color="blue"> Obama is no socialist </font>

<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UqrzrHug--8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UqrzrHug--8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

Please clarify why you think I didn't read your post correctly.

My hat is off to Judd Gregg, who stood up for his principles.



Are you talking about the same principles that led him to lobby for the position?

Hey Za,

Listen to this weeks Bill Moyers' Journal. He interviews an old leader of the IMF and talks about the banks and the power they have. It goes right to your assertion that the banks have to much control in setting monetary policy. You'll like it.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02132009/watch.html

<font color="blue"> Obama is no socialist </font>









This is true, he's been labeled effectively by the corporate media, but he is not a socialist. I'm a socialist and Obama doesn't even come close. On the other hand, he's entirely too honest and intelligent to be a Republican. That must make him a weak kneed liberal. Hopefully he will get a backbone and wake up to the fact that both parties are in bed with big money and are doing nothing to help the majority of this country.

We've been going down the Ayn Rand free market path for 30 years now. We've dismantled the rules and structures put in place after the New Deal because they were "socialist," and have been pursuing moving everything out of government into business hands. The result, a recession that borders on depression, a crumbling infrastructure, banks and businesses that regularly build products that cheat their investors and the public, a crumbling and inadequate education system, a college system that used to be unparalleled and is now failing, a significant period of the bottom 80% not keeping up with cost of living increases and the top 1% far outstripping the rest of the world in worth increases, a loss of the most productive manufacturing base that's ever existed, an inability to trust the products and food we buy, military systems and weapons that don't work, but cost a lot, and an endless war that is making Boeing, Raytheon, and other industrial military companies rich, while doing nothing to make the world safer.

Good thing we got rid of all them socialist policies.

In fact, the total U.S. Federal debt is just under $11 trillion. Your number includes present value of future benefits owed by Medicare and Social Security.



I took this that you were saying our government is only $11 Trillion in debt. I felt you were questioning my $65.5 Trillion Obligations.

As I stated in another post, I now know you were not questioning the $65.5 Trillion number, only making sure I new what number I was quoting.

Yes, I think my billion posts afterwords shows I know that.

Sorry to argue a mute point.

These are mind staggering numbers. If you are not alarmed by them, something is wrong.

BTW, did you know that the FED holds 49% of the $10.8 Trillion dollar debt and is charging interest to us on it????

China owns 23% of our debt.

I am not one of those conspiracy guys that think the banks are run by 2 or 3 devil worshiping Bilderberg CFR guys.

However I am in line with Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson who did not trust a Central bank because the one who controls the money, controls the country.

when you get down to it, the FED is one of the major causes of our problems right now and one of the major causes of the crash in 1929 and following depression.

The FED follows the Keynesian way of thinking, I am totally against it. It is Keynesian Economics that have put us so far in debt.

it is my opinion (and many others) that Obama's economic policies may push us over the tipping point.

So far the only reason we have not fallen prey to rapid inflation (caused by our FED) is due to the Dollar remaining strong. There are several reasons for this: Other Central Banks have done the same things to weaken there currency and the notion that the American dollar is still the strongest monitory unit just to name two.

The question is, what would happen if other countries refused by buy our treasury notes? In theory, our country would be forced to print money, which would make us another Banana Republic or Weimar Republic

<font color="blue"> Obama is no socialist </font>









This is true, he's been labeled effectively by the corporate media, but he is not a socialist. I'm a socialist and Obama doesn't even come close. On the other hand, he's entirely too honest and intelligent to be a Republican. That must make him a weak kneed liberal. Hopefully he will get a backbone and wake up to the fact that both parties are in bed with big money and are doing nothing to help the majority of this country.

We've been going down the Ayn Rand free market path for 30 years now. We've dismantled the rules and structures put in place after the New Deal because they were "socialist," and have been pursuing moving everything out of government into business hands. The result, a recession that borders on depression, a crumbling infrastructure, banks and businesses that regularly build products that cheat their investors and the public, a crumbling and inadequate education system, a college system that used to be unparalleled and is now failing, a significant period of the bottom 80% not keeping up with cost of living increases and the top 1% far outstripping the rest of the world in worth increases, a loss of the most productive manufacturing base that's ever existed, an inability to trust the products and food we buy, military systems and weapons that don't work, but cost a lot, and an endless war that is making Boeing, Raytheon, and other industrial military companies rich, while doing nothing to make the world safer.

Good thing we got rid of all them socialist policies.



You're saying that Obama's not a socialist and that socialism is the answer. Well, Obama is doing just what FDR did... creating a centralized government! And if that isn't socialism, then you are off your rocker!

BTW, save the idealistic rants from socialist web pages (like the socialists New Party, of which Obama was a member) for someone else. Kurt may be impressed by them, but I am not.

[/QUOTE]Obama...too honest and intelligent to be a Republican.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, right!

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-no-more-secrecy-about-bills

Hey Kurt, wasn't it you that ranted and raved about how transparent Obama was? Good call!

Lyle, next time you try to make fun of republicans, try doing it to someone who calls himself a republican! A "week kneed liberal" like Obama is nothing more than a socialist marionette. But in his case, a willing one.

Obama is doing just what FDR did... creating a centralized government! And if that isn't socialism, then you are off your rocker!




wow ... talk about calling apples oranges! sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would spew

We've been going down the Ayn Rand free market path for 30 years now. <font color="red"> I only wish that was true, the market was much freer 100 years ago than now </font> We've dismantled the rules and structures put in place after the New Deal because they were "socialist," <font color="red"> How about because several parts of the new deal were deemed UN CONSTITUTIONAL to begin with, the parts that made it though were not in the best interest of long term growth. Yet we still have not rid ourselves with many of the New Deal programs. </font> and have been pursuing moving everything out of government into business hands. <font color="red"> It is a fact that anything the government tries to do cost more and is never any good. </font> The result, a recession that borders on depression, <font color="red"> The Recession was partly caused by Regulations on loans, partly on easy money (interest rates set too low) and a government that said "make the loans, we will guarantee them" </font> a crumbling infrastructure, <font color="red"> maybe we should use some of the money we are using to rebuilt Iraq and other countries on our own </font> banks and businesses that regularly build products that cheat their investors and the public, <font color="red"> anyone who does not do there research should expect to loose money </font> a crumbling and inadequate education system, <font color="red"> The only inadequate education system I see is the GOVERNMENT RUN EDUCATION SYSTEM, what is your solution, more government??? </font> a college system that used to be unparalleled and is now failing, <font color="red"> If this is true, it may be because there is no longer competition to get students. Now days anyone can go to college. Even as little as 40 years agofewer kids who graduated High School went to college. </font> a significant period of the bottom 80% not keeping up with cost of living increases <font color="red"> This could be blamed on BOTH minimum wage laws and on a FIAT dollar that is not even worth the paper it is printed on. </font> and the top 1% far outstripping the rest of the world in worth increases, <font color="red"> This has been going on for more than 200 years, it takes money to make money </font> a loss of the most productive manufacturing base that's ever existed, <font color="red"> mostly because it became cheaper to produce overseas and ship here. This is a DIRECT result of minimum wage laws. </font> an inability to trust the products and food we buy, <font color="red"> Interesting, the government regulates and you say we can't trust them???? If a company sells something bad, they will go out of business, so what incentive do they have to sell bad product. </font> military systems and weapons that don't work, <font color="red"> ???? </font> but cost a lot, <font color="red"> will not argue that </font> and an endless war that is making Boeing, Raytheon, and other industrial military companies rich, while doing nothing to make the world safer. <font color="red"> will not argue that either. Eisenhower warned us of the Military Industrial Complex, now we let them run our country from the sidelines. </font>

Pizza, "Re:" who? lol You musta clicked "quote" on my response to the self described "socialist" (Lyle) and deleated my words, then added your response... no biggie.

Obama is doing just what FDR did... creating a centralized government! And if that isn't socialism, then you are off your rocker!




wow ... talk about calling apples oranges! sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would spew



As you once said (out of any relative context btw), "let him who has ears to hear, let him hear!"

It is said that history is not one thing after another, but the same thing over and over again. This IS the new deal all over again. Obvious differences are involved, most of which you would probably try to divert attention to, but the idea is the same. MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL. That isn't to say Obama and HIS congress will be satisfied with only this bill, it's far from enough for them, it is to say, it's "the same thing over and over again."

Concerning what Obama and HIS congress are doing, you can tie my words with Rush Limaughs all you want! That's a feather in my cap that I would proudly wear! "I HOPE THEY FAIL." Why would I ever want this brand of socialism, which takes away incentive and makes us more dependant upon failed government to succeed? ""

Remember, it is Obama's own commerce chairman (it is believed Obama said as well) has recently said that FDR didn't spend enough! This spending isn't over by a long shot, and we haven't even gotten to the tax increases yet. That same commerce chairman recently said a higher gas tax should be on the table! Personally, I think you can count on it.

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/obama.jpg (http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/?action=view&current=obama.jpg)

<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R227Mho8Ymc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R227Mho8Ymc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

Ug, Alex Jones.....

BTW, the video and audio of him near the end is at the FED in Dallas, at an event he invited himself to and took over, not letting our people do the speeches they were going to do.

no, I am not an Alex Jones fan. He has his purpose and does bring up points every once in a while, but most of what he pushes is overblown accusations. Who knows, maybe some of his accusations are true and get abandoned, that would be a positive thing. I wonder what he has dug up on Obama. It could be interesting.

Anyone else notice that Obama is taking longer to sign this bill than Congress took to pass it??????

Obama to sign stimulus bill today in Denver (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96DAOLO0&amp;show_article=1&amp;catnum=0)

The Bill was not even available until after Midnight on Thursday, Not one single Yes voter for the bill read it.

So, would you sign your name to something you didn't read?????

What is the difference of doing that or voting for it.

So, like I said, Congress approved the bill on Friday, then obama waits until Tuesday to sign it.

Why didn't Congress wait until Monday to sign the bill, then at least they could have read some of the 1100 pages of pork.

So, like I said, Congress approved the bill on Friday, then obama waits until Tuesday to sign it.

Why didn't Congress wait until Monday to sign the bill, then at least they could have read some of the 1100 pages of pork.



Yeah, I thought it was kind of humorous that the President was continually drilling it into our heads that we needed this spendulous bill now, our economy is worsening by the day, etc......and then he waits until Tuesday to sign it! :D

What ever happened to their promise that they would wait 48 hours to review pending legislation before it is voted on or signed into law? Oh yeah.....I don't think they could have waited 'til Monday because Pelosi had an early morning flight to Europe on one of our tax-payer funded governmental jet airplanes.

The DOW dropped roughly 300 points yesterday to the lowest level it's been in a year......there's some hope for us! :)

Stimulus Plan Explained


Shortly after class, an economics student approaches his economics
professor and says, "I don't understand this stimulus bill. Can you
explain it to me?"

The professor replied, "I don't have any time to explain it at my
office, but if you come over to my house on Saturday and help me with
my weekend project, I'll be glad to explain it to you." The student
agreed.

At the agreed-upon time, the student showed up at the professor's
house. The professor stated that the weekend project involved his
backyard pool.

They both went out back to the pool, and the professor handed the
student a bucket. Demonstrating with his own bucket, the professor
said, "First, go over to the deep end, and fill your bucket with as
much water as you can." The student did as he was instructed.

The professor then continued, "Follow me over to the shallow end,
and
then dump all the water from your bucket into it." The student was
naturally confused, but did as he was told.

The professor then explained they were going to do this many more
times, and began walking back to the deep end of the pool. The
confused student asked, "Excuse me, but why are we doing this?"

The professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make
the shallow end much deeper.

The student didn't think the economics professor was serious, but
figured that he would find out the real story soon enough. However,
after the 6th trip between the shallow end and the deep end, the
student began to become worried that his economics professor had gone
mad. The student finally replied, "All we're doing is wasting valuable
time and effort on unproductive pursuits. Even worse, when this
process is all over, everything will be at the same level it was
before, so all you'll really have accomplished is the destruction of
what could have been truly productive action!"

The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile,

"Congratulations. You now understand the stimulus bill."

Anyone Remember this????

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bg98BvqUvCc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bg98BvqUvCc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him, he's gonna help me."



Well, I though she was stupid.

I guess I was wrong.

So Za,

Are you talking about the 100 years ago just prior to the last time that we let business run things how they wanted to and they crushed the worlds economy? Hmmmmm.

I have to laugh at the thought that an econ professor wouldn't understand Keynesian economics. It doesn't surprise me that whoever wrote this piece didn't, but I'm pretty confident that an econ prof would.

Pretty much all economists agree that a Keynesian stimulation is needed, they disagree on the method. The liberals support giving money to the poor and middle class, the conservatives argue that we should give it to the rich and big business. Of course for the last 30 years we've been doing exactly that, i.e. giving money to the rich and big business, and, well, the world is in a shambles. Apparently the rich and big business don't know how to handle their money...

For the first 100+ years of this country, and a general rule, there was not mass regulations on business.

But with that said, That does not mean there has not always been a history of regulating businesses. I am just saying that in general, regulations did not become prominent until the Roosevelt years.

BTW, there was the deepest recession in history (from what I know) in 1920-21

From what I know, this was worst than in 1929.

Our government did NOTHING

and guess what, we recovered very quickly.

In 1929, our government did lots of stuff (kind of like now) and the recession turned into a depression that lasted for over 10 years.

web page (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Smiley.1920s.final) (note, I have not read this page, I was only looking for some of the numbers, check out the graphs on this page)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bEZB4taSEoA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bEZB4taSEoA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Pizza, "Re:" who? lol You musta clicked "quote" on my response to the self described "socialist" (Lyle) and deleated my words, then added your response... no biggie.



Why player, you say that like it's a dirty word. I'd take a look at what the conservatives have done over the past 8 years before I started thinking that other political groups are, less than savory.

BTW - the conservatives in this country have so widely painted the term socialism that most misuse it.

Socialism by no means includes government programs that hire people. It is a system where there is public ownership or control of the basic means of production, distribution and exchange with operations made simply for use, not for profit. Nothing that Obama has put forward fits this definition. Conservatives throw the socialist label at him because they realize it's anathema in this country. They are hoping that by labeling him they can dis-empower his efforts and then put more money into the same hands that just robbed us blind. Talk about silly.

On the other hand, we're just in the middle of a period where we've done just the opposite, where we've given business unmitigated access and control over our government, and situations normally handled by governments (war for example). The end result has been far worse than anything ever done under so called socialist governments like those in Europe.

BTW Za - in answer to your question on weapons systems that don't work, start with this Expose'.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02222008/profile.html

It's from a piece in the Seattle Times that looks at earmark monies and they show a couple of nice examples of large expenditures on military systems that didn't deliver. Then google military housing to find information on American Eagle Builders, a company that took millions to build military housing and delivered nothing but were protected by legislators they made contributions to. Then look up the Boeing Osprey. After that research the history of the Bradley tank... here you can read the wiki piece on how the gas tanks are stored right in the middle of the tank, where they will be hit in a fire fight and explode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley

Want more? Look at Gulf War Syndrome which doctors now agree was caused by exposure to toxic agents that were introduced to our people by the military and military contractors. Then look up anthrax vaccines given to military personnel and see the problems caused there. Last but not least look up how KBR poisoned our troops in Iraq.

Have fun.

For the first 100+ years of this country, and a general rule, there was not mass regulations on business.

But with that said, That does not mean there has not always been a history of regulating businesses. I am just saying that in general, regulations did not become prominent until the Roosevelt years.

BTW, there was the deepest recession in history (from what I know) in 1920-21

From what I know, this was worst than in 1929.

Our government did NOTHING

and guess what, we recovered very quickly.

In 1929, our government did lots of stuff (kind of like now) and the recession turned into a depression that lasted for over 10 years.

web page (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Smiley.1920s.final) (note, I have not read this page, I was only looking for some of the numbers, check out the graphs on this page)



The wiki piece on the 1920 recession, it's causes and why government intervention was uneccessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-WWI_recession

Actually, you've been listening to George Will. The great depression responded very well to FDRs actions, then a conservative legislature pushed him into the position that the budget should balance so he held up on a lot of actions resulting in a stalled recovery. There was a great YouTube video on this where Georgie boy got called out by Paul Krugman for remembering history from a position that might not have been historically accurate. :)

BTW, the Dow hit a 52 week low today

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jTYnlcZW8_8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jTYnlcZW8_8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BTW, the Dow hit a 52 week low today



Buy GE, the're down to about $10. Wait though, they are getting ready to pay a dividend, once that's done they will dip a little lower and you'll get an even better price.

That guy is hilarious. He's made some excellent predictions in the past, but he's fairly bombastic. Za may agree with his notion that we're going to have one giant bank that the idiot Giethner will run doling out money to political lackeys...

Catching Wild Pigs

A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.

AThe professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at th e professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America , you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam the gate on America ..

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"


Thomas Jefferson

Santelli rant



Santelli misses one thing: Right now, no one cares what anyone in the financial sector thinks.

This is an excellent story, now replace the pigs and corn with fear, censorship, and spying on American citizens. Then read up on your Russian history to see what the Russians did to their leadership when they didn't deliver. You underestimate human nature and their desire to be independent. You also need to read up on Socialism in Europe. The socialist countries there have way more trouble with their people than we do. They tolerate malfeasance on the part of their governments way less than we do...

BTW - you should also look up basic economics theories such as economies of scale. Your notion that no bureaucrat can do something for you as well as you can, ignores the cost of a laminater, camera, private and independent tester, computer to print the card, independent and private driving expert, and other items I've undoubtedly missed - and that's just to get your drivers license. Next, you should try and build a house without them pesky inspectors...

Oh yeah, and read 1984 while you're at it. I worry way more about how we respond to advertising than to free handouts. The reality is that good advertising makes us buy things we not only don't need, but that are down right bad for us. Of course the Bush Admin was a master at advertising...

Za,

watch this Moyers' special:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02202009/watch.html

It starts out with Stanford and how he bought off Congress while he bilked millions. It goes through how money gets solicited and it doesn't spare anyone, GOP or Dem. It shows clearly how these guys don't serve us, but instead serve the rich who can hire lobbyists.

People are too caught up in fear, war, socialist, conservative and other terminologies. The reality is that no matter what position you take, our leaders don't serve us, they serve the rich and powerful. We are of course the money source, better known as the mark.

The comments on the stimulus are particularly informative. Fewer jobs will be created than rich lobbyists... We used to say when the revolution comes the first thing we do is rid ourselves of the lawyers. I think we need to insert lobbyist in there somewhere. What is most interesting part of this is it shows how the Dems and Reps work together with these lobbyists because in the end, it's all about the money.

This is hilarious!

It's interviews with people who say that Obama is either the Antichrist or Hitler 2. What makes it really funny are the polls by CNN and Fox!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219482&amp;title=unusual-suspect

http://www.texasinsider.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ramirez0225091.jpg

I will comment later on this speech (when I have time to actually listen to it)

<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/29374420#29374420" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><style type="text/css">.msnbcLinks {font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;} .msnbcLinks a {text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px;} .msnbcLinks a:link, .msnbcLinks a:visited {color: #5799db !important;} .msnbcLinks a:hover, .msnbcLinks a:active {color:#CC0000 !important;} </style><p class="msnbcLinks">Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/), World News (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507), and News about the Economy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072)</p></div>

I found this interesting, but don't have time to look up the numbers myself.


Bush Surplus/Deficit Fiscal Years 2001-2008 (billions of dollars)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Statistics
2001 128.2
2002 -157.8
2003 -377.6
2004 -412.7
2005 -318.3
2006 -248.2
2007 -160.7
2008 -454.8
TARP -750.0
Total -2751.9

Obama Budget Deficit FY 2009/10*
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Statistics
2010 -1750
2011 -1117
Total -2867

*The Obama deficit total does NOT include the impact of the $787 billion Stimulus package approved by House Democrats in February. It also excludes any effect of an Obama contingency request for an additional $750 billion to use for bank rescue. If the contingency amount is included the total deficit for FY 2009/10 is $3.617 trillion



So if these numbers are correct, in less than 100 days, Obama has already proposed a deficit spending more than Bush did in 8 years.

http://www.texasinsider.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ramirez022609.jpg

I found this interesting, but don't have time to look up the numbers myself.



How ridiculous to post data you have not verified and then add the caveat "... if these numbers are correct ...".

Especially when two sources are used for each administration (Bush -- CBO, Obama -- OMB). Are you talking apples and apples or apples and oranges?

Where's Bush's FY2009 Budget? You do realize, don't you, that the 2009 budget was set by Bush and the 2009 fiscal year started Oct. 1, 2008?

"If this Budget used the gimmicks employed in recent budgets, it would show a bottom line that would appear about $2.7 trillion better over ten years. For example, these other budgets didn't include the likely cost of natural disasters or the cost of permanently continuing the temporary patch that prevents millions of Americans from paying the Alternative Minimum Tax. Using gimmicks may make good politics temporarily, but it doesn't help move the nation forward." -- OMB Director Peter Orszag on the FY2010 budget proposal.

Why I wanted you to look them up for me, I didn't have the time and it came from World Net Daily, not exactly a reliable news source.

And yes, normally when a president puts together a budget, it does not include natural disaster and has not included the "Emergency" military spending.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/abzh6g2eMLM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/abzh6g2eMLM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

"9000" earmarks in this bill????? Didn't Obama say he would not sign any earmark laden bills as president?????

I quickly tried to find the video I saw just the other day where they were talking about the "Off budge" bills that come up. It might have been the speech I went to of Rep Michael Burgess 2 weeks ago. Either way, I don't really have the time to look it up. I still have not watched the Obama state of the Union address.

One more note, the question came up with Ron Paul of what he felt about Obama's State of the Union address, Rep Paul admitted he was not even there. He stated he gets frustrated with what is being said an how every cheers for those programs so nothing productive comes out of it, he was out doing something else.

In consecutive posts, you've used WND and the House Minority leader as sources without checking.

Yep, it's going to be a long walk in those woods...

As of right now, John Boehner is saying and doing the right things. I have been watching him.

As far as WND, I have never been a fan of that sight and usually don't read many articles from them. That is why I stated what I did. I did not have time to research the article myself, I did not know where they came up with there numbers. I will not defend WND.

Here is a list of some of those nearly 9000 earmarks

Among the 9,000 earmarks included in the bill were:

� $45,000,000 for Streetcar Loop grants in Portland, Oregon

� $7,100,000 for the recovery of Hawaiian sea turtle population

� $5,800,000 for a Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate at the University of Massachusetts

� $5,000,000 for San Francisco Bay restoration

� $2,100,000 for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York

� $1,700,000 for swine odor research and manure management in Iowa

� $1,000,000 for red snapper research in Florida

� $1,000,000 for Mormon cricket control in Utah

� $951,500 for an anti-idling lithium ion battery program in California

� $951,000 for a sapphire algae to fuel demonstration project in New Mexico

� $900,000 for planetarium equipment in Chicago

� $800,000 for a fish passage project in Washington

� $713,000 for �intelligent facades for high performance green buildings� in New York

� $475,000 for the �elimination of blight� in Highland Park, Michigan

� $475,000 for a parking garage in Utah

� $445,000 to map the Hudson River to �build resiliency to climate change�

� $332,500 for Bronx Zoo Intermodal Transportation Facility

� $300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center

� $250,000 for Lahontan Cutthroat Trout management in Nevada

� $200,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii

� $143,000 for Nevada Humanities �to develop and expand a comprehensive online encyclopedia�

http://www.texasinsider.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/garyvarvel030209.jpg

Soon to be an internet classic :D

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S4hrnbhIHDY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S4hrnbhIHDY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<style type='text/css'>.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url('http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png') !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}</style><div class='cc_box' style='position:relative'><div class='cc_home' style='float:left; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-width:1px 0px 0px 1px; width:60px; height:31px; background:url("http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-out.png");'></div> ('http://www.comedycentral.com')<div style='font:bold 10px Arial,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif; float:left; width:299px; height:31px; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-width:1px 1px 0px 0px; overflow:hidden; color:#707070; position:relative;'><div class='cc_show' style='position:relative; background-color:#e5e5e5;padding-left:3px; height:14px; padding-top:2px; overflow:hidden;'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart ('http://www.thedailyshow.com/')<span style='position:absolute; top:2px; right:3px;'>M - Th 11p / 10c</span></div><div class='cc_title' style='font-size:11px; color:#868686; background-color:#f5f5f5; padding:3px; padding-top:1px; line-height:14px; height:21px; overflow:hidden;'>Mess O'Potamia - The Iraq War Is Over ('http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220241&title=mess-opotamia-the-iraq-war-is')</div></div><embed style='float:left; clear:left;' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:220241' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed><div class='cc_links' style='float:left; clear:left; width:358px; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-top:0px; font:10px Arial,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif; color:#b9b9b9; background-color:#f5f5f5;'><div style='width:177px; float:left; padding-left:3px;'>Daily Show Full Episodes ('http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml')
Important Things With Demetri Martin ('http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/important_things/index.jhtml')</div><div style='width:177px; float:left;'>Political Humor ('http://www.indecisionforever.com')
Joke of the Day ('http://www.jokes.com')</div><div style='clear:both'></div></div><div style='clear:both'></div></div>

http://www.texasinsider.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/ramirez030609.jpg

It's been just over 50 days and can you count how many broken promises are made in this campaign speech????

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/o5t8GdxFYBU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/o5t8GdxFYBU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

The more things change, the more they really stay the same

Seal of Approval (http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090316/capt.41b3eb365db24b288773005a571c8609.obama_whre10 9.jpg?)

Ya know Za,

you keep posting all of these postmortems for capitalism and saying how bad it's going to be, in case you haven't noticed, capitalism got us into this mess...

Capitalism, like Democracy only works well with checks and balances. When you lose those, you wind up with unbridled greed and power chasing, both of which happened under the last administration.

On the other hand, Obama's handling of AIG, and he should get credit for the things done by people he hired, is abominable. As O. Snow of Maine said, the Democrats need to grow a pair. The sad thing is that I think Obama knows better. A little less compromising and a little more common sense would go a long way.

Obama Credit (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032001820.html?hpid=topnews)

I think the argument about what got us into this mess requires looking into decades of government regulations the removing common sense from the mortgage business. When it got to the point that banks refused to take on any more bad debt, then government stepped in and removed restrictions and allowed banks to make loans they could immediately sell off and take no responsibility for.

Since it was still technically a free market and stock prices move based on comparative profits, when one bank did as the government requested, most others had to follow to keep pace. The government push to force banks to provide loans to people that could not meet the common sense rules that the banking community had established is what caused the mess and it started long before the last administration.

The last administration did do its part to keep the problem going and make it worse, just as the administrations before it. Both sides had opportunities to do something about it, but it was a politically unpopular cause.

The real credit should go to the wall street geniuses that devised the mortgage backed CDOs that solved the bank's problem of not being able to bundle and sell loans made to risky borrowers. Once this opaque paper became available, banks were free to easily meet the number of low income loans the government was demanding. Without this tool, banks may have not been able to meet the numbers and made a profit and the numbers would have been forced down before they blew up.

I disagree, we don't have true capitalism. We have managed capitalism and it does not work.

opps

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vE0yAEvVsUo&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vE0yAEvVsUo&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

1st, let me point out it says "Could"

Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget/print)

Then lets realize it "Could" be more

I tend to agree with Dick Army here. Of course you could say this statement about a majority of the politicians in Washington.

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dkh2C51O-BQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dkh2C51O-BQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

One reason why I favor the Republican budget proposal against Obama's budget

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AJ259A_ryan_NS_20090331212427.gif


The GOP's Alternative Budget (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854083982575457.html)

One reason why I favor the Republican budget proposal against Obama's budget

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AJ259A_ryan_NS_20090331212427.gif


The GOP's Alternative Budget (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854083982575457.html)



Because it's base on fake numbers?

You do realize that there is nothing to prove that chart, right? Look at the source...
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/04/paul_ryans_crazy_budget_graph.php
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/04/where_ryans_crazy_graph_came_from.php

The CBO's long-term only covers through 2019....after that, the rest is made up.

Plus, the Republicans make an assumption that most of the wealthy will choose to be taxed at a higher rate (35%) than they have to be (25%).
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/04/02/gop-deficit/
(Warning: Liberal site)

If Republicans suddenly turned into the ones trying to gain some control over the national debt it would at least be a refreshing change.

http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp250/hfds006/National-Debt-GDP.gif

I have a lot of respect for Clinton and his Republican Congress that balanced the budget. Of course you realize, the Clinton years were a result of Reaganomics.........

I don't have much respect for Reagan or either Bush. I love what Reagan said in his speeches, but he did not follow though with what he did in office.

Is Obama Skidding or Crashing? (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/is_obama_skidding_or_crashing.html)

I love how Penn says this, oh, check out the poll numbers on the left side of the article.

What, specifically, do you find interesting about the poll numbers?

Congress numbers are up
Obama's numbers are down
55% of the polled people are not happy with the direction our government is heading.

Congress numbers are up



Good.


Obama's numbers are down



Wow, less than two months in office and the people are ready to throw him out, huh? &lt;rolling eyes&gt;

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/kk3_2/ObamaJobApproval.jpg


55% of the polled people are not happy with the direction our government is heading.



Of couse, that's better than that number has been in years! :eek:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/kk3_2/CountryDirection.jpg

Bryan clearly hasn't been paying attention to the polling about the "right / wrong direction."

On the posted graph, notice when the upturn happened...right after Election Day. Hmm...

That is because a lot of people though we were going to get "Change"

So far I have not seen much.

Methinks you've missed the point. Since Election Day, the "right direction" number has jumped 30 points.

Your disdain for national government clouds your interpretation of change.

That is because a lot of people thought we were going to get "Change"

So far I have not seen much.



Let me check my pay stubs since Obama was elected.

Hey look, I get more money and less goes to the government.

To me, that seems like a pretty big change.

That is because a lot of people though we were going to get "Change"

So far I have not seen much.



Actually, there has been significant change Za, perhaps not the change you want, but significant. On the other hand, in some key areas where national polls say the public wants change, nothing has happened. Take for example, continuing to give money to banks that used a screw driver on the dog. In this, Reagan had it right, put those idiots in receivership and fix them (see what was done during the Savings and Loan crisis). You don't have to nationalize and you certainly don't have to keep the idiots who made this mess.

Of course there has been other change that Za is skipping. The rhetoric from the right has grown in leaps and bounds. "Oh lord, the country's goin' to the dogs! We's all goin' ta die!" Secede!" Yawn, I wish they would. It's like dealing with a three year old. If you let him do what he wants, he'll eat junk food and act the fool until he's fat and lazy (or in this case, broke with crumbling infrastructure, and stuck in an illegal, non-productive war). If you go to the three year old and tell him, diet time, and go to school time, and go to bed on time... time, he's going to whine, lay on the ground and pound his hands and feet, and act like a child. Very similar to what the conservatives (please see Fox News) are currently doing. So, in terms of that, there's been lots of change, the conservatives don't like being forced to act like adults, they liked not having to pay for anything, and they liked not obeying the laws of our country and the world. And like a three year old, they are whining and pounding their hands and feet.

Well put Lyle on both parts...

Although now there is a meme developing that Fox News isn't conservative...
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/04/i-think/
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/fox_news_not_conservative/

I see that point, but I think that conservativism has changed for/by the Fox News crowd.

The rhetoric from the right has grown in leaps and bounds.


Well before Obama the rhetoric was crazy from the left. But I agree, You don't get the same emails from the RNC or the Texas GOP, both of which use "scare tactics" to try to get money out of me. (it has the opposite effect on me)

Not that they were not using this before, you just didn't notice it.


the conservatives don't like being forced to act like adults, they liked not having to pay for anything, and they liked not obeying the laws of our country and the world.



I do have a problem with this statement. Who is not acting like an adult, the person who votes to spend more money than what we have, or the person who says "whoa, we need to freeze spending". Personally I think the Adult thing to do would be to cut spending to the level of income. That is what each and every one of us has to do, why not government?

Oh, the statement of "Not having to pay for anything" fits the Democrats a lot more than the Republicans. And I am not talking about the supporters who think Obama is going to pay there mortgage payment.

The government is STILL not following the laws. A majority of the laws passed by Congress are illegal according to the Constitution.

The Federal Government is suppose to protect our boarders and control immigration, they are not even following the laws that are on the books now. In fact they are going to try to let all the lawbreakers get away with it with another Amnesty bill soon.

I am not trying to fool you into thinking the Republicans have been doing it right for the last 20 years, I am telling you they "appear" to be going back in the right direction right now. I hope it lasts, it is the only way Republicans are going to be elected from this point on.

If the Republicans run a true Conservative against Obama, the Republicans will win. If Republicans try to run a Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney, they will loose, badly.

for the last few days, I keep hearing how Obama and Chavez shook hands.

Big deal, who cares. It is not like we are going to support his government. (oh yea, we already by 9% of our oil from his country) In my opinion, it was just two leaders of there countries greeting each other.

I am sick of getting emails from neo-con republicans that this was a bad thing. Just like North Korea's rocket launch, this is no big deal unless you make it one.

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hccoGYIyWjY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hccoGYIyWjY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

Associated Press-GfK poll

-More than 90 percent of Americans consider the economy an important issue, the highest ever in AP polling.
Which is what I said nearly 2 years ago was the most important issue of this election.

-Nearly 80 percent believe that the rising federal debt will hurt future generations, and Obama is getting mixed reviews at best for his handling of the issue.
Yet again, something else I keep talking about

And yet, the percentage of Americans saying the country is headed in the right direction rose to 48 percent, up from 40 percent in February. Forty-four percent say the nation is on the wrong track.
A lot of this could be on Foreign Policy. Obama has done some good things here.

Unlike some people, I actually look for things I can agree with on Obama. He should agree with me 25% according to candidate calculators, so far that is about right.

Two articles I find interesting for different reasons.

1st up

The Audacity of Unawareness (http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2009/04/15/the-audacity-of-unawareness/)

Article point to the of the things that President Obama was "unaware" of.

2nd up

This is from World Net Daily
Is Obama campaign cash quashing eligibility suits? (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=95772)
This crap will just not end, but then why is Obama's lawyers fighting these lawsuits if they have no merit? That is my only problem with it.

I have stated before that Obama's Cap and Trade was a bad idea.

On second thought, GOP cap-and-trade cost estimates are correct (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aeb_1240430993)

So Obama says he cut taxes on 95% of the American people (when just over 50% even pay taxes via income taxes)

Then he wants to issue a Cap and Trade plan that could cost each household $3100. Yea, that is just great.

A little humor for the day

President Obama's Teleprompter goes out.

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cxxxGUeZtno&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cxxxGUeZtno&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

Ha, another one

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aWp8dJva9dI&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aWp8dJva9dI&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

Looks like for years of these after 8 years of messed up words.

opp's

<object width="580" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IMoTkIfw0vs&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IMoTkIfw0vs&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360"></embed></object>

If the Republicans run a true Conservative against Obama, the Republicans will win.

No, they won't. They'll get 25-30% of the vote and lose a lot more races downballot. A third party candidate might even win more votes.

:rolleyes:

Remember, "Conservatism doesn't fail, it is failed."

Bryan, keep it up. Your thoughts are right there with the rest of the 21%. The faster the Republican party dies, the sooner a legitimate opposition party can be emerge.

I do not like the new board

it has only been 100 days of Obama, wait for 3 more years, the Republicans will be able to put dog for president and it will win.

This is a screen shot from the 25th, no need for Texas to Secede now, The US Department of State considers Texas another country.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_v81YUTe-7Bs/SfM6HIDUcuI/AAAAAAAABLQ/VIq95mItXZs/s1600/TexasCountry.png (http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=190281700383&h=vfYMZ&u=gY_zi&ref=nf)

In all fairness, it has been corrected.

This post has been edited.

I must apologize, I get lots of emails and news articles from others and did not VET this article because of who sent it too me. He was just as fooled as I was.

Obama's Transcripts (http://valsword.spaces.live.com/blog/cns%215AE7137D0CFE6F89%21573.entry)

In a quick search I can not find anything other than reprints of this article. I was not even able to find a group called "Americans for Freedom of Information" in a quick search.

Based on the date right about "AP - WASHINGTON D.C." it appears to be an April Fools Joke.

I get nearly daily updates on several of the lawsuits against President Obama to show his real birth certificate. I personally do think he is eligible to be president. He was elected by a Majority of the people who voted in the last election. I think many of those people were voting for change, change from what the Bush Administration was heading us. Unfortunately, we are not getting the change that we need.

it has only been 100 days of Obama, wait for 3 more years, the Republicans will be able to put dog for president and it will win.

that is if the government give the citizens the option to vote.

Obama's Transcripts (http://valsword.spaces.live.com/blog/cns%215AE7137D0CFE6F89%21573.entry)

Something you didn't hear about in the MSM

Gee, I wonder why.

Three things, Bryan:
1st -- click on the link you provided and check out the date of the AP release. You'll find it just above "AP- WASHINGTON D.C." Anything about that date ring a bell?

2nd -- go to the AP web site and do an archive search on phrases from your article such as "Occidental College" or "Barry Soetoro". Let us all know when you (don't) find the article.

3rd -- loosen the tin foil hat a bit, it appears to be cutting off circulation.

I do not like the new board

it has only been 100 days of Obama, wait for 3 more years, the Republicans will be able to put dog for president and it will win.

good luck with that. Republicans need to come up with a new strategy to trick working Americans into supporting a party that actually only supports the very, very rich. They tried lying and saying it is about guns, or homosexuals, or patriotism, or the 'liberal media' (even though the media is commercial) and that worked to dumb a lot of people down even while Bush and Cheney lied us into war and wasted a trillion US tax dollars in so doing (though it did redistribute a lot of money to their defense industry friends). Thankfully people could tell Obama was the most competent candidate available for the job.

Bryan's been drinking too much tea...


EDIT: Just checked on that link...sigh. Lots of people mighty upset that a left-leaning black man is President.

And that reminds me...why do all these conservative idiots run with stuff without fact checking?

(And yes Bryan, I'm counting you amongst the group mentioned.)

And that reminds me...why do all these conservative idiots run with stuff without fact checking?

(And yes Bryan, I'm counting you amongst the group mentioned.)

Gee, I wonder why.


My post has been edited with a full apology for not Vetting that article. I was fooled as was the Vice Chair of the Republican Party of Denton County who had posted that article.

I should know better than to trust a blog post.

Bryan James

Well done, Bryan. Now if you can just curb your penchant for jumping on this stuff in the first place ...

Republicans need to come up with a new strategy to trick working Americans into supporting a party that actually only supports the very, very rich.

What is funny about this quote is that nearly everyone on this board had probably made more money than I have in the last 10 years.

Did you ever wonder why the super rich also support the Democratic Party???

Personally, I would like to see the number if "millionaires" that support each party. I would be willing to bet that it is very close to 50/50.

My mom is friends with guy who goes to gun shows. They way she says it, he keeps talking how they (dealers) can't keep ammunition in stock. It sells as fast as they can get it for various reasons.

(this guy is going to teach my mom how to shoot my dad's old gun. She lives out in the country by herself now and even though it is pretty safe, she needs to know how to handle it)


<object width="580" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bzwZEz4Fd1c&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bzwZEz4Fd1c&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360"></embed></object>

More from the liberal Main Stream Media, eh Bryan?

Do you know anything about this treaty (http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/49907.htm)?

Statement from the NRA: (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12369)The NRA is well aware of the proposed Organization of American States treaty on firearms trafficking, known by its Spanish initials as CIFTA. The NRA monitored the development of this treaty from its earliest days, but contrary to news reports today, the NRA did not "participate" at the meeting where the treaty was approved.

The treaty does include language suggesting that it is not intended to restrict "lawful ownership and use" of firearms . Despite those words, the NRA knows that anti-gun advocates will still try to use this treaty to attack gun ownership in the U.S. Therefore, the NRA will continue to vigorously oppose any international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners.

(emphasis added)

Me personally, No, Obama is not going to be able to get any new gun laws passed even with his Democratic majority.

The YT video of Lou Dobbs was for information purposes only. I have not looked into the subject because I know it would not be ratified.

Texas has a bill that would let gun manufacturers make anything and sell anything as long as it was stamped "Make in Texas" It would be illegal to transport these guns out of state.

the bill is authored by one of my favorite House Rep's Leo Berman.

White House weighs executive pay standards (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6427411.html)


So, do you still think Obama is not a Socialist?

52.9% of you voted for this crap, well 52.9% of the people who actually voted.]

U.S. to Expand Immigration Checks to All Local Jails (http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=9284)

This is a HUGE step in the right direction. Glad to see Obama supporting it.

When you get down to it, this is funny. Helen Thomas has questioned presidents for longer than I have been alive and she basically says she has never felt more manipulated than she does now? Wow.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fh5vzOAEQ-A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fh5vzOAEQ-A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

When you get down to it, this is funny. Helen Thomas has questioned presidents for longer than I have been alive and she basically says she has never felt more manipulated than she does now? Wow.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fh5vzOAEQ-A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fh5vzOAEQ-A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I wish everyone saw how obvious it is that we are being deceived by anyone popular enough to rise to the office of president of the united states of america.

Obama's war policies have proven thus far to be just as bloody and unjust as those of Bush, yet people do not cry out against them, because he's cool and swats flies.

He is truly Wall Street's perfect candidate.

[/URL]

So, do you still think Obama is not a Socialist?


The right's super-secret plan to end all plans

July 01, 2009 7:48 pm ET

Pssst. Hey, conservatives ... I want to let you in on a devious little plan being hatched by your leaders in the media.

It goes something like this: President Obama, the Democratic Congress, and the federal government are evil. They already have too much power and want to take even more control over your life. They're out to take away your guns, liberty, freedom, paycheck, and perhaps your mother's apple pie! Worse yet, now they want to count you. Have they no shame?

That's right. In Obama's unyielding quest to impose a [URL="http://mediamatters.org/items/200904090032"]socialist-fascist-communist-Marxist (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6427411.html) police state, the president is going to send his minions from ACORN to your door to count you for the decennial census.

And their solution to the president's pompous power grab? Sitting out the census.

Seriously.

Over the past few months, an increasing number of conservative media figures and news outlets have encouraged (http://mediamatters.org/research/200906250045) their audiences not to complete the 2010 U.S. census or expressed support for those who've decided to skip the count. Some have even stated that they wouldn't complete it, either -- even though the law requires (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Facs%2Fwww%2FDo wnloads%2FCT_%2520answers.pdf) respondents to complete it.

They often cite the participation (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F20 09%2F03%2F17%2Flawmakers-concerned-role-acorn-census%2F) of the community organization ACORN -- the right's bogeyman (http://mediamatters.org/research/200902200014) du jour (http://mediamatters.org/reports/200904070005) -- in the recruitment of workers who will collect data as a reason to be wary, even frightened of the census.

Never one to skip an opportunity to put his special brand of crazy on full display, Fox News' Glenn Beck recently said (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906250039) of the census, "[T]here's a lot of people that are concerned with it because they don't want to fill it out. They're not comfortable with ACORN members coming to find out all this information." One can't be sure where Beck got such precise numbers -- "a lot of people" -- but it's a safe bet the U.S. Census Bureau won't be following his methodology. Later in the segment, Beck confessed that he's "considered not filling it out."

Over on Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose, a caller stated that he, too, wouldn't fill out the census because of ACORN's involvement, prompting co-host Rose Tennent to Beck-ingly say (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906220016), "ACORN being recruited by Obama for a mission -- that is so frightening," adding that "it scares me to think that these thugs are getting this information from us."

Then there's syndicated radio host and convicted Watergate felon G. Gordon Liddy -- a man who has acknowledged (http://mediamatters.org/research/200810220013) plotting, but not following through on, a few murders, kidnappings, and a bombing. He praised Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota for her refusal to complete the census, saying that "she's worried about the involvement of ACORN ... in next year's census. ... I hope that she refuses, and I hope that they charge her, and then I hope she takes ... that thing right up to the Supreme Court of the United States and gets this question resolved." You see, Liddy is no fan of government "intrusion." During the 1990s, he reportedly instructed his radio audience on multiple occasions on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents.

All this ACORN paranoia from the right is pretty nutty, but it is hardly its only problem with the census.

On his radio show, Neal Boortz told a caller, "I received a census form the other day asking me a whole bunch of questions about my small business. I threw it in the trash. I'm not going to answer it. None of their **** business." He added that "the federal government and the state government, they have a legitimate reason for knowing how many people live where. ... [M]ost of the rest of the information is designed to help the government steal from you in order to pass off your property to the moochers. They're looters."

A sentiment apparently shared by former Bush administration speechwriter Meghan Clyne. She recently wrote (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Fseven%2F052620 09%2Fpostopinion%2Fopedcolumnists%2Funcle_sams_way _too_nosy_survey_170972.htm) that the census questions "forc[e] Americans to disclose sensitive information about their finances, health and lifestyles." While Clyne did let readers know that answering the census is mandatory, she went on to write, "The good news is that I called the help number on my form and a Census representative finally conceded that the government was unlikely to pursue punishment if I didn't respond, saying it would be 'a waste of time and money.' " Apparently, Clyne doesn't mind if folks break the law, so long as the law isn't likely to be enforced.

I suppose this would a good time to let conservatives know why their war against the census is both politically na�ve and tremendously foolish.

Those detailed questions that seem to be causing conservatives such heartburn? They help determine where federal money is best spent. The U.S. Census Bureau notes (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Facs%2Fwww%2FDo wnloads%2FCT_%2520answers.pdf%23page%3D2), for example, that "long-term care providers and community planners use information about disability to help them decide where to locate services and facilities." It would be a shame if conservatives actually listened to the right-wing chattering class, skipped the census, and missed out on badly needed public service projects.

Of a more pressing concern to political junkies: The census helps determine population shifts throughout the country that inform the redistricting (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairvote.org%2Fredistrictin g%2Fredistricting.htm) of congressional seats and truly impacts the balance of power in Washington. So, if conservatives aren't counted, they could lose seats in Congress -- something a high school government student would likely know.

If the right wants a path back to power, it might first consider putting an end to this fool's errand, lest it cut off its nose to spite its face.

Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediamatters.org%2F), a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair (http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/), a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fkarlfrisch) and Facebook (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FKarl-Frisch%2F40499080815) or sign up (https://mediamatters.org/u/login?source=mymm) to receive his columns by email.

On his radio show, Neal Boortz told a caller, "I received a census form the other day asking me a whole bunch of questions about my small business. I threw it in the trash. I'm not going to answer it. None of their **** business." He added that "the federal government and the state government, they have a legitimate reason for knowing how many people live where. ... [M]ost of the rest of the information is designed to help the government steal from you in order to pass off your property to the moochers. They're looters."

I've never heard this guy but I couldn't agree more. I never listen to radio but that statement makes me want to listen to him :)

I use to listen to Neal Bortz a long time ago. Not so much when he became a Pro War Libertarian. (he bought into the Bush warhawk propaganda)

I've never heard this guy but I couldn't agree more. I never listen to radio but that statement makes me want to listen to him :)

Please, don't fill out your census. Just throw it in the garbage like that Rep Congress woman from Minnesota told you to. This guy is right, it's just an invasion of your privacy. You go, protect your rights!

Please, don't fill out your census. Just throw it in the garbage like that Rep Congress woman from Minnesota told you to. This guy is right, it's just an invasion of your privacy. You go, protect your rights!
Michelle Bachmann did NOT say to throw the census out, only to answer those questions they are REQUIRED by the Constitution.

There is a big difference.

According to the 2000 census, refusing to answer questions can result in an up to $100 fine. I have read several articles about people who never filled theirs out and refused to answer when they showed up at the door, none of those people were fined? So why are they threatening up to a $5000 fine this year?

As for me, I have not made up my mind. Why in the world does the government want to know how many flushing toilets I have or if I can get myself dressed in the morning or if I can walk up stares unassisted.

I will not answer questions like "how much is your house worth on the open market" or "how much is your electric bill" or "how far do you drive to work" Those are personal information that I don't want to tell the government.

Oh, I should mention my dad worked as a census taker in 2000, he had some great stories. Including being surprised how some people in rural TN live.

Michelle Bachmann did NOT say to throw the census out, only to answer those questions they are REQUIRED by the Constitution.

There is a big difference.

According to the 2000 census, refusing to answer questions can result in an up to $100 fine. I have read several articles about people who never filled theirs out and refused to answer when they showed up at the door, none of those people were fined? So why are they threatening up to a $5000 fine this year?

As for me, I have not made up my mind. Why in the world does the government want to know how many flushing toilets I have or if I can get myself dressed in the morning or if I can walk up stares unassisted.

I will not answer questions like "how much is your house worth on the open market" or "how much is your electric bill" or "how far do you drive to work" Those are personal information that I don't want to tell the government.

Oh, I should mention my dad worked as a census taker in 2000, he had some great stories. Including being surprised how some people in rural TN live.

Ignore the man behind the curtain, don't fill out your census, be a good American and stand up to totalitarianism, just throw it in the garbage.

I do find it amusing that some of the people who are dead set against the census are the very ones who are all for the government illegally spying on us via e-mail, intranet access and cell phone usage.

Personally, I see a great opportunity in the census. They just have to sneak in a few questions.

How many toilets do you have 0-1, 2-3, 4-5, more
How many RPGs do you have in your basement 0-1, 2-3, 4-5, more
Is your dwelling 1 floor, 2 floors, 3 floors, more
Which is better to add to your home made bomb, yogurt, an accelerant, diet coke, a sticky with your name and address.
How many cars does your family have 0-1, 2-3, 4-5, more
How many cars does your family have that could be used as a car bomb 0-1, 2-3, 4-5

By using this simple insertion of questions into the census, the unsuspecting terrorist would give themselves away! Ingenious you say, nothing that Michelle couldn't have thought of I say.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PWFb1Yvlem4&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PWFb1Yvlem4&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x1C_NWMRs8Q&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/x1C_NWMRs8Q&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Is that your interpretation of the video? "Obama Handshake Snubbed"? If so, try watching it again with this heading: "Obama introduces diplomatic staff to Medvedev."

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s2MjQ17kDng&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s2MjQ17kDng&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Is that your interpretation of the video? "Obama Handshake Snubbed"? If so, try watching it again with this heading: "Obama introduces diplomatic staff to Medvedev."

I am not so sure now

Watch these two video closely

3 go right to the King, the 4th does shake Obama's hand. It is hard to tell for sure because the view is a little blocked.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XoVWw-MCMHw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XoVWw-MCMHw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This is that other view, and it is much clearer here. He is going to the hand shake at the beginning. In the 2nd part, you can even see him look at the persons hand and he looks a little ****** off.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AHEposwhovk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AHEposwhovk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

At first I thought you might be right, but after seeing both of these video's, I kind of wonder.

Oh for crissake, pizza. For someone so politically active I would you think you would recognize Obama Senior Advisor David Axelrod and Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett being introduced to the Saudi King. Or are you saying Obama's own staff snubbed him. Were they pi$$ed off about something that day?

In the second video, can you not see the split in video after Obama extends his hand the first time? That before the split they have just turned right from the door into the room and that after the split they are much further down the line with the door well in the background?

Jesus, man. Wake up.

And considering how many advisers he has, how am I suppose to know two people I have never even heard of. I can only see what I see, if I recognized those, I would have not posted that.

As I said, I am not so sure now. That means I did not buy into it, only pointing out what I can see.

They are you typical Internet cuts, never what they appear to be. I can't count how many I saw on Bush, even edited ones. It makes sense that it will continue with a Democrat in office. Some done in jest, others done maliciously.

In some of those shots, you can see him hold his hand palm up, that is a sign of introduction, a hand with the palm to the side is looking for a handshake.

In that first video, the one time you can see his palm, it is not up, but he appears to be introducing the guy. (of whom I don't know who it is)

In the second video, who is the first person he walks up to in the room? Who is the short guy walking in with him. That short guy appears to be introducing President Obama.

at the end of the clip, The Presidents palm is more up than to the side, he is introducing at that point. (It just looks bad on video) But he does look like he is trying to shake a hand, specially when you look at this face and he has that scour for a second. That is why I had second thoughts about it.

Obama makes the case against a government controlled health care program

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XTi-WdOu2s&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XTi-WdOu2s&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Please don't tell me you're going to take up health care Za?

America, most expensive health care in the world with some of the worst results in the first world. Unless of course you're an investor in the health care industry, in which case you're making oodles.

BTW - if they take out the public provision on this bill we need to make sure they kill it. Medicare has an overhead cost of 3%. It is highly efficient and works well. Private insurance has an overhead closer to 30%, that covers the cost to manage the business, approximately 10%, and the 20% we pay to the CEO and shareholders.

Think about what the bill does if they remove the public option, it essentially says that everyone has to be insured by a private carrier. Who's gonna pay for that 27% markup? Our tax dollars.

America pays 16% of GDP for one of the worst health systems in the first world (ranked 37th overall). We have infant mortality rates that are just above those in third world countries and our average length of life is falling. The best health systems in the world are mixtures of private/public options and all cost well under 10% of GDP.

As the man said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing that doesn't work over and over.

Interesting read.

nat hentoff joins the vast right wing conspiracy...

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff081909.php3

America pays 16% of GDP for one of the worst health systems in the first world (ranked 37th overall). We have infant mortality rates that are just above those in third world countries and our average length of life is falling.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/planning-to-retire/2009/08/21/life-expectancy-reaches-a-new-high.html


http://www.livescience.com/health/090821-human-lifespans.html

America's Socialized Health Care
By Lawrence Wilson, M.D.
Published 08/17/09 (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=172)

Health-care systems in most developed nations are in financial trouble. Health benefits are being cut back because of exploding costs. Degenerative illnesses such as diabetes and cancer are at epidemic levels in spite of new drugs and treatments. While doctors, politicians, and insurers blame each other, they rarely mention the real problem....

....An example of the dismal failure of the government sector in America is the "war on cancer," which is administered by the National Cancer Institute. It has cost taxpayers some $30 billion over a 35-year period. After adjusting for a longer life span, between 1950 and 1989 the incidence of cancer rose by about 44 percent. Breast cancer and colon cancer in men have risen about 50 percent, while some others have risen 100 percent. A recent article in the Journal of the AMA was entitled "Are Increasing Five-Year Survival Rates Evidence of Success against Cancer?" The answer was "No."

Lots of great info in that article.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/planning-to-retire/2009/08/21/life-expectancy-reaches-a-new-high.html


http://www.livescience.com/health/090821-human-lifespans.html

Dammit, Jerry! Don't let your pesky facts spoil a perfectly good statist indoctrination session.:mad:

MMM, interesting Lyle, I just read today that the Insurance industry makes 3% profit.
__________________________________________________ _____________

I don't think I posted it here, but this is a fact.

In Texas, a 25 year old man's insurance cost 3 times more than in Alabama.

Why, well, Texas has 3 times more Regulation on that health plan.
__________________________________________________ _____________

I talked with a friend of mine that works in a medical lab. I asked him what the general view of ObamaCare is with the people they work with.

He told me how little Medicare pays and it nearly costs as much to get the money out of them as they get from Medicare. That is why it is a growing trend to not take Medicare.
__________________________________________________ _____________

In my opinion, the best way to drive the costs down for our medical insurance is to end as many regulations on the industry as we can. Texas passed Tort reforms a few years ago and that no only had increased the number of Doctors in Texas, but also resulted in a decrease in Insurance premiums afterwords. (I saw this with my own eyes, in fact it is cheaper for me to get health insurance right now that it was when I quit paying it.)

I don't think I posted it here, but this is a fact.

In Texas, a 25 year old man's insurance cost 3 times more than in Alabama.


I just got insurance quotes for the following ficticious person:
Male
Date of Birth: 05/24/1984
Non-Smoker
Non-Student

Insurance Plan:
Celtic Basic PPO 80/20 plan (which is available in both states)
$5000 deductible
20% co-insurance
$30 office visit

Cost:
Zip Code 36601 (Mobile Alabama): $73.72/mth
Zip Code 77001 (Houston, Texas): $89.66/mth

Hmmm, maybe they multiply differently in Texas than up here.

www.ehealthinsurance.com

http://www.southernstudies.org/news/fs20041014.htm

"UNLITIGATED, UNPROTECTED

In fact, Texans may not become fully aware of what they've lost through
the state's tort reform until they need a lawyer. That's what happened
to Jacque Smith last year. In November 2003, Smith's 85-year-old mother,
an Alzheimer's patient, was living at the Heritage Duvall Gardens
nursing home in Austin. Late one night, a staffer entered Smith's
mother's room and allegedly raped the elderly woman. Another employee
witnessed the assault, but apparently didn't bother to report it to
anyone and went home after his shift finished. Smith only learned about
the assault because the witness mentioned it to someone at the home
during an unrelated conversation later the next day. After her mother
was examined at a hospital, the assailant was arrested and charged with
aggravated sexual assault.

Smith then consulted a lawyer about filing suit against the nursing home
for poorly supervising its employees. In the past, such a suit might
have garnered a multi-million dollar settlement or jury verdict for the
victim. Texas has some of the worst nursing homes in the country. A 2002
study by the special investigations division of the U.S. House Committee
on Government Reform found 40 percent of Texas nursing homes committed
violations of federal regulations that caused harm to nursing home
residents or placed them at risk of death or serious injury. More than
ninety percent did not meet federal staffing standards. The poor
conditions of Texas nursing homes led to a cottage industry in the legal
profession, whose lawsuits posed much larger threats than any state
sanctions.

A Harvard University study found that nearly 9 out of 10 nursing home
plaintiffs received compensation, a success rate that the study deemed
"off the scale" in personal injury litigation, and a sign that the
negligence as well as the severity of injuries in the cases was
clear-cut. Rather than pledge to clean up its act, the nursing home
industry lobbied hard for the passage of legislation that would put the
lawyers out of business. The state passed the nursing homes' favored
medical malpractice bill in September 2003, capping pain and suffering
awards at $250,000.

The new law has produced the results desired by its backers. When Smith
looked for an attorney, she discovered her first hurdle might be simply
finding one willing to take the case. The first attorney she called
declined, as few lawyers in Texas will now handle such a complaint. Then
she contacted Bragg, who explained to her that the most her mother could
win would be $250,000, because there were no economic damages involved.
Smith's mother, after all, didn't have a job to lose and she didn't
incur significant medical bills. After taxes and legal fees, she would
receive at most $100,000. That would make her ineligible for Medicaid,
meaning the money would end up being funneled back into the nursing home
industry that failed her in the first place.

As a result, Smith says she's unsure whether she will pursue legal
action because she worries that any money that might result from it
would not be used to improve the quality of her mother's life. But she
is frustrated by the prospect of simply dropping the case. "It feels
like somebody should be held accountable," she says.

According to a study by the Dallas Morning News, since the bill's
passage medical malpractice lawsuits in Texas have fallen off by 80
percent. Ironically, in giving advice to citizens on how to choose a
nursing home, the Texas Attorney General's office suggests using the
number of lawsuits against a home as a good gauge of quality. Its web
site counsels, "A nursing home that gets sued frequently should not be
your first choice." How the public will make these choices in the
future? The web site doesn't say.. "

I just got insurance quotes for the following ficticious person:
Male
Date of Birth: 05/24/1984
Non-Smoker
Non-Student

Insurance Plan:
Celtic Basic PPO 80/20 plan (which is available in both states)
$5000 deductible
20% co-insurance
$30 office visit

Cost:
Zip Code 36601 (Mobile Alabama): $73.72/mth
Zip Code 77001 (Houston, Texas): $89.66/mth

Hmmm, maybe they multiply differently in Texas than up here.

www.ehealthinsurance.com (http://www.ehealthinsurance.com)

Texas Public Policy Foundation (http://www.texaspolicy.com/event-details.php?event_id=267)

found starting on page 72

25-year-old male
would pay $248 for a basic health insurance plan that he could get in Alabama for only $77 a month; the difference is that Alabama imposes only 19 mandates compared to Texas� 55.

The increasing costs force many people out of the market by pushing the cost of health insurance out of their reach, a fact demonstrated by the dramatic difference in Texas� and Alabama�s uninsured rate, 23.9 percent and 13.5 percent respectively.


BTW, the Celtic Ins Co insurance is not very good. I just read up on it and it does not cover very much. It is not a basic health insurance plan like companies offer.

Ug, trying to find a real insurance company that covers both states is tough with the same type of plans. Why, because there are different regulation on each plan.

Blue Cross Blue Shield for a $1500 deductible same plan was AL $88 - TX $125

But again, the plans were not exactly the same.

With the Celtic plans, they were pretty close.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/planning-to-retire/2009/08/21/life-expectancy-reaches-a-new-high.html


http://www.livescience.com/health/090821-human-lifespans.html

Hmmmm! Good Call G. I misspoke, please see below. On the other hand, I'll bet you this changes in the next 30 years. Even if we get adequate health care. If for no other reason than our weight is burgeoning, so to speak.

So, do you deny that we pay more? And yes, some first world countries are having trouble with paying for their health care, same as we do, but a lot of countries cover all their citizens, do so more cheaply than we do, and have better outcomes. If many of those countries increase spending by 1 or 2%, their costs will still be well below what we spend, and they would solve the problems they're having.

Have at some of this.

Life expectancy world wide - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate


http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/a/tallbutfat.htm

You may not like it, but our health care is not as good as other countries. We do pay 16% of GDP, and, we don't live as long as many other people from other countries do; and we do have higher infant mortality, but most of all, we have 50 million Americans who are either under insured or without insurance.

Oh, and the number one cause of bankruptcy in the middle class...

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

medical bills.

BTW - I acknowledge that if you are rich, you're going to do pretty good here. Just don't be caught being middle class or poor.

So back to life span - go look at life expectancy in the U.S. in 1960 vs. the world, and compare that to today and the CDC study. So, while G is right, that we've increased our life span, we've lost ground to many other countries. So, what I should have said is that our life span is decreasing relative to other countries, but increasing overall. Apparently they take better care of their citizens.

So G, I concede your single point, but not that we don't have a significant problem.

BTW - go look at satisfaction surveys on Medicaid vs. private insurance. No comparison.

Ug, trying to find a real insurance company that covers both states is tough with the same type of plans. Why, because there are different regulation on each plan.

Blue Cross Blue Shield for a $1500 deductible same plan was AL $88 - TX $125

But again, the plans were not exactly the same.

With the Celtic plans, they were pretty close.

Za, you need to sit in on some TDI meetings, where the big carriers and the big hospitals push for the regulations you are complaining about. Now why would they do this? Same reason why Budweiser pushed for regulation of beer way back last century, it eliminates the small competition.

It costs insurance companies way more to keep track of and file with each and every state and to meet all of each state's requirements, than any set of single unified regulations that were followed in every state, would.

My doctor complains about how Medicare is driving him out of business all the time. He also complains about the taxes on his 100 acre West Texas ranch too. My heart bleeds for the guy.

So back to life span - go look at life expectancy in the U.S. in 1960 vs. the world, and compare that to today and the CDC study. So, while G is right, that we've increased our life span, we've lost ground to many other countries. So, what I should have said is that our life span is decreasing relative to other countries, but increasing overall. Apparently they take better care of their citizens.



I think it's not so much other countries/governments taking better care of their citizens, but other countries citizens taking better care of themselves. ;)

Za, you need to sit in on some TDI meetings, where the big carriers and the big hospitals push for the regulations you are complaining about. Now why would they do this? Same reason why Budweiser pushed for regulation of beer way back last century, it eliminates the small competition.

Thank you Lyle, this is one of the problems I have with government passing regulations on business.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZKBa9K_vAm8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZKBa9K_vAm8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I think it's not so much other countries/governments taking better care of their citizens, but other countries citizens taking better care of themselves. ;)

Absolutely disagree.

Watch this video - http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08282009/watch.html

It clearly shows what's wrong with the U.S. system by focusing on big ticket items instead of prevention. We'll spend $100,000 giving a guy a bypass that's going to give him a 5 month life extension, where $300 of preventive information and $5,000 of meds would have given him 20 years. The free market system drives this phenomenon because, the big ticket item is where the money is. No one becomes a GP anymore, they can't get rich and yet that is what we need. Government programs that help cover the training of GPs so they don't come out with huge dept (again driven by the free market) solves some of that problem.

Whether or not it is the citizens of other countries taking care of themselves vs. what we're doing, we still pay. Those people, not taking care of themselves end up in the emergency room. We pay at this juncture. The model is broken.

Google number of deaths due to lack of insurance in America. You get a nice number.

Then Google Wendell Potter, he was the media control guy for Cigna. What he says about the industry is telling. Then ask yourself, why has this guy never appeared on FOX, CBS, NBC etc.?

Thank you Lyle, this is one of the problems I have with government passing regulations on business.

Again Za, you judge in a black and white fashion. We had a situation in this country where there was no government control or action. It was called the 1800s. We had child labor, sweat shops, high levels of pollution (growing as we became more industrialized), polio and other diseases, People working 60 to 70 hours a week and on and on and on. It wasn't fun Za. Good regulations can be a boon. The real key is to get the money out of Washington so that we, that is, people like you and I can have a say in what rules come out.

It was called the 1800s. We had child labor, sweat shops, high levels of pollution (growing as we became more industrialized), polio and other diseases, People working 60 to 70 hours a week and on and on and on.

It's more or less advancements in technology, not government regulations, that have aided us in our quality of life.

Technology helped us improve our knowledge and our knowledge led us to undeniable truths (child labor is bad, taking care of the environment is good). Our knowledge has now shown us that government regulations (in this day and age) favor the rights of the corporations and lobbyists more so than the rights of the individual.

The regulations that Obama would like to pass will further enhance the consolidation of wealth and power for the conglomerates of the world.

It's more or less advancements in technology, not government regulations, that have aided us in our quality of life.

Technology helped us improve our knowledge and our knowledge led us to undeniable truths (child labor is bad, taking care of the environment is good). Our knowledge has now shown us that government regulations (in this day and age) favor the rights of the corporations and lobbyists more so than the rights of the individual.

The regulations that Obama would like to pass will further enhance the consolidation of wealth and power for the conglomerates of the world.

Shirley you jest. If this is so, why is it that we have so much child labor and sweat shops going on in our erstwhile allies' factories in China, Indonesia and other places? If technology and learning makes these problems go away, I'd think they'd be going in the opposite direction than what they are. I know, we's better than they are. But then, why is it with all that technology that we see Wal-Mart abusing it's employees, making them log hours without paying them? Most of all, go look at the problems we've had with numerous drugs (start with Celebrex) since Bush gutted the FDA. The FDA now relies on drug research provided by the drug companies to judge the efficacy and safety of drugs. Surprisingly enough, the drug companies cherry picked the data to make their drugs look effective and safe.

And I might second guess your notion that business is going to take care of the environment with out clear rules. Take for example Stinkadena, Pasadena Texas, where Georgie grandfathered all the petroleum processing plants. The levels of Benzene around schools in that area are toxic. And unsurprisingly, when Mayor White proposed putting up permanent monitoring stations near the schools, all them oil companies jumped right in and said, your right, we need to take care of our kids... NOT! Their lobbyists fought the good fight in Austin and got the plan shut down. Then, take a look at the coal plants planned for Texas, it's a disgrace. They are going to use the dirtiest coal in those plants resulting huge pollution problems. Since I find it likely you haven't seen the report, go look up the incidence of mercury poisoning in fish from streams and lakes in the good old U.S.A., the result is that no uncontaminated fish were found in a recent survey, for fish taken across the country. And where does that wonderful mercury come from, try burnin' coal, not to mention other manufacturing techniques. Now why do they continue to do this when there are technologies available to clean this stuff up? Maybe cause there's no rules stoppin' them?

You sure we've learned not to do this stuff?

BTW - take a look at the derivatives that were developed that resulted in the recent Wall Street collapse. Numerous people said they would be very bad when they were developed back in the 80s. Insiders from the industry got government jobs, and fought against any type of regulation, so they went regulation free, and shazam, trillions down the tubester.

The notion that everything will be O.K. without rules, flat out denies human nature and human greed. The concept, pursued out of hand, was based on mathematical models developed by John F. Nash (the guy from the movie A Beautiful Mind). The idea was that if you removed all controls, human nature driven by greed would result in the best outcome. How absolutely stupid was that?

So, that is the position you're supporting here. BTW - there's a great documentary on this and how it was supposed to work and how badly it's failed. It's called The Trap.

Oh yeah, one only has to look at the process we followed going to war in Iraq, where a lack of controls lead to parsing of the data to put forward only the data that Dick Cheney wanted us to see, to realize how stupid a lack of controls and rules are. Remember the billions of dollars they wheeled onto an airplane and flew over there, that disappeared. Most of all, think about the over a dozen service men who were electrocuted by Kellogg Brown and Root, a Haliburton subsidiary, because there were no rules on how they built military facilities in Iraq. The bottom line was doing it right was expensive... Sad to think that you might go to war, and get electrocuted in a shower by your own people.

BTW - those advances in technology that you're going on about, many of them came out of government paid for research. That's the reason we dominated in science for 60 years. Now that that money is going away, geeze, the best research doesn't come out of America anymore. Japan, and increasingly China dominate in research. Funny that...

I was raised in this so called Stinkadena and I still have at least 50% brain function.

I still have at least 50% brain function.
That's debatable.:p

I was raised in this so called Stinkadena and I still have at least 50% brain function.

Taken in context, you could have been President, if only... :)

Glad I'm not you Matt, of course, I'm your next door neighbor, and the evidence suggests that Pasadena shares.

http://www.benzenelawsuits.com/refineries/texas/pasadena-refining-systems-pasadena-refinery.cfm

http://www.lungcancerfact.com/articles/?post_id=19

And here's one on Somerville, didn't someone say we knew better?

http://www.houstonpress.com/2007-12-06/news/toxic-town/

I'm not advocating the strike that Larry Flint is, but pay attention to the part in the middle where Mahre and Moyers talk about the Dems vs. GOP and just who they serve.

Larry Flint

The time is now. America is waking up. Resistance is the order of the day. I could feel it with growing certainty as I read the numerous and gratifying responses to my call for a national strike here on HuffPost. So many smart people offering so many good ideas. Even my detractors acknowledged the underlying issues I put forth.

This notion was reaffirmed on August 28 when Bill Maher interviewed Bill Moyers on a special edition of HBO's "Real Time". "The Democratic Party has become like the Republican Party, deeply influenced by corporate money," Moyers said. A short while later he added: "You really have two corporate parties who in their own way and their own time are serving the interests of basically a narrow set of economic interests in the country." In other words, it's the people versus the corporate state.

You hear it more and more, sometimes spoken in code, sometimes spelled out as clearly as a neon sign. We have reached the tipping point. The enemy has been identified. It's not left versus right it's democracy versus greed. This realization sits there like an unexploded bomb. We stare at it, waiting only for someone to light the match.

That was the essence of the debate here on HuffPost. Who will set a strike date? What date shall it be? Some called for me to set it. I demur. It's not up to me. There are enough millionaires telling you what to do. And I'm not at risk. I say, let the people decide.

That's what was so exciting about the discussion my essay evoked; it was all so egalitarian, so organic. Some who responded said they could not afford to stay home from their jobs; they were too vulnerable. Others suggested letting each participate in the way that is best for them. If you can't yell strike, or claim a sick day, then go to work but don't shop.

That makes sense to me. Like it or not, we are a consumer-driven society. Each and every purchase we make is a political action. That's called the power of the consumer. We must learn to wield this power effectively.

When it came to picking a date for the strike, some said September 11, others preferred October 1, and yet others favored November 5. I like all those dates. Why should there be just one? Or just three? We'll need a series of strikes. We'll need to build a movement. This isn't going to succeed overnight.

Whatever date is chosen, or however many, I'll throw in my support. It will be a slow build, but we can win this battle if we remain focused on the prize: meaningful campaign finance reform and serious restrictions on lobbying activity. It's time to take back our government. Let the average person have an equal voice with the wealthy.

I believe you are attempting to cite Larry Flynt.

Wow, that Anti-Healthcare video is scary. Why would people be "Anti-Healthcare"?
Those folks appear to be on CrystalMeth with no objective whatsoever.
I wish there would be more solution oriented Town Hall gatherings with less hate!
I like the fellow that touted the USS Constitution, isn't that a Naval aircraft carrier?

Anyways i do appreciate the concerns relative to the Nations betterment in many posts here by the members. The ONE post by Merkaba311 concerning "Americas Socialized Healthcare" was informative. I believe in Alternative Medicine and it should be explored and made more available to those in need. I dont say that Western Medicine is bad for Surgery and more serious treatments are necessary.
Thankfully folks like the PizzaGod and others are relaying their info onto this board with actual videos and research made by others to get our own opinions made.

P.S. Guns and Healthcare...........What a concept!

Floyd

BTW - those advances in technology that you're going on about, many of them came out of government paid for research. That's the reason we dominated in science for 60 years. Now that that money is going away, geeze, the best research doesn't come out of America anymore. Japan, and increasingly China dominate in research. Funny that...

First of all, you have to ask yourself if America really 'dominated in science for 60 years' or this is just more of the 'we're the best' propoganda that is shoveled down our throats as Americans. Historically, a greater number of technological advances have either come from Europeans or from naturalized Americans with European roots than Americans. But, let's ignore the facts and assume America dominated the world scientifically for 60 years.

Why?

You claim it is because of government research money. I think you need to look at a combination of factors such as the size of America's economy in relation to the rest of the world during most of the 20th century, the fact that Europe spent much of the 20th century rebuilding and had little time to research (and somehow managed to produce more Nobel laureates than the US in that time!), the fact that for most of the 20th century, the now growing and expanding economies of Asia were mostly agrarian in nature and had little need for technological innovation, and, perhaps most importantly, the Americans are better at marketing than the rest of the world (which leads to them being able to produce the illusion of being the technological leaders without actually being the technological leaders.)

Technological innovation is driven by two things basically - war and economics - two things the US was truly dominant at in the 20th century. It's no wonder that the US can't maintain the illusion of technological greatness anymore. America is fighting wars against technologically inferior opponents which decreases the need to improve weaponry and these wars have broken the economy which decreases the rewards for innovation.

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZKBa9K_vAm8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

That video has to be California. Where else can you get that many idiots together.

On the other hand, when you interview lots of people, you are going to get a few wack jobs thrown in. (there were a lot of video edits to make the people sound stupid or not sound like they know what they are talking about)

it drives me crazy when people don't really know why they support or don't support something. I know why I don't support the Health Care, I also know why I don't support President Obama's policies. (although it did another good thing this week with Cuba) Even a broken clock is right 2 times per day:D

That video has to be California. Where else can you get that many idiots together.

Sorry, too many White folks there to be California, try more East.

First of all, you have to ask yourself if America really 'dominated in science for 60 years' or this is just more of the 'we're the best' propoganda that is shoveled down our throats as Americans. Historically, a greater number of technological advances have either come from Europeans or from naturalized Americans with European roots than Americans. But, let's ignore the facts and assume America dominated the world scientifically for 60 years.

Why?

Because we've never made a point of sytematically persecuting our Jews.

What did I miss?????

A
vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year
uses
800 gallons a year of gasoline.

A
vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year
uses
480 gallons a year.

So, the average clunker transaction

will reduce US gasoline
consumption by 320 gallons per year.




They
claim 700,000 vehicles - so that's 224 million gallons
/ year.

That
equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of
oil.

5
million barrels of oil is about � of one day's US
consumption.

And,
5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at
$75/bbl.

So,
we all contributed to spending *$3 billion* to save
$350 million.


How
good a deal was that ???


They'll probably do a great job w. health care
though!!

What did I miss?????

Several things, actually.

- The average miles driven per year is 14,450 according to the U.S. Dept. of Transportation

- Only 19 to 20 gallons of gasoline are produced from a barrel of oil according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration

- The one year forecast price for oil is $82/bbl according to oil-price.net

- Why is the return on investment calc. arbitrarily set to one year? Shouldn't the average time these vehicles (the clunkers) stay on the road factor in?

- General Motors brought laid off employees back to work as a result of demand increase due to this program. Shouldn't you calculate in reduced unemployment benefits as well as increased cash in the economy?

- Long term, if we eliminate dependence on foreign oil and therefore no longer have to defend our energy interests overseas, how much can the defense budget be reduced?

I think your heart just got a little blood on me...

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P5yxFtTwDcc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P5yxFtTwDcc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>