Woman to Woman

By MJK

February 10, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

Shaunti -

A Democrat will be President.

If you look at the voting results for all the contests to date, the winning Democrat in many of the primaries received almost twice the votes as the leading Republican and in the majority of primaries the Democratic winner had more votes than the Republican. Some telling contests include Michigan where Hilary was within 15,000 votes of homeboy Mitt in spite of the fact that no delegates were available and Massachusetts where Hilary received 700,000 votes to Mitt’s 260,000. Hilary also received more votes in Florida than McCain even though no delegates were available.

Perhaps wealthy Republicans have donated more, or maybe Mitt personal wealth thrown away to date is the reason for the $30m extra given to the righties but as Mitt and Rudy have proven, money doesn’t buy support, votes do.

By USinUK

February 11, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this

Dear Shaunti:

This is an apple: “I predict that when November comes, indecision will be owned by moderate Republican and Independent women. Disappointed by our Iraq policies, pro-choice to a degree—what Republican candidate speaks to their concerns? These women, tired of the personal vendettas, tired of the safe choices, tired of being tired, just might join Democrats in spurring change and making history.” (emphasis mine)

This is an orange: So as much as Andy salivates at the prospect of new recruits, conservative women aren’t going to abandon their beliefs just to make history by electing the first female or black President. (again, emphasis mine)

Apples and oranges: please, learn the difference.

By GeezGuys

February 11, 2008 8:33 AM | Link to this

Shaunti’s right, “conservative” women will stick with the sinking ship of the other fake “conservatives”. These are the people who say they support the sanctity of marriage and oppose “activist judges”, who trampled Michael Schavio’s role as a husband, while shopping for judges who would ignore the law.

Like the dodo, these nuts are dying out. The demands they extort from John McCain, like anti-abortion Supreme Court nominees, will sink any further chance of another Republican president.

By The Other Jack

February 11, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

Hope springs eternal.

There is disappointment in the Republican Party, but the hope that Obama constantly talks about has not been absent to Republicans. We have hoped the Democrats that voted to send our young people into a horrible war would put aside partisan politics and support those troops … but no.

We hoped that the democratic voting block would see through the promises of the Democrats running for Congress to regulate the oil companies, fix the Health system and stop exporting our jobs, but they didn’t. Now we have a Congress with a lower approval rating than the president.

Shanti and Andrea both talked about the women that would come over from the Republican Party to support a woman running for president. For every woman that comes over, there will undoubtedly be a man that will defect in the opposite direction in order to vote against a woman.

Perhaps a woman could make a connection with men from both sides and not only pull in women from the Republicans, but maintain the support of the men from her own party: that is unless the woman was Mrs. Bill Clinton. Is America ready for a woman that is apparently a sock puppet for her husband?

The organization MoveOn.org was named because of the penchant of Republicans to point a finger at the criminal incompetence of Bill Clinton, his decimation of our CIA and the scandals d’jour. So does MoveOn.org become MoveBack.org?

At this point, it seems very “cut and dry”, but what happens when Mrs. Clinton’s criminal acts and other problems are pointed out along with the policies that Democrats support. Pro-abortion, Pro-union/mafia, pro-big insurance, pro-big taxes, anti-traditional family, anti-freedom of religion and anti-middle class.

The democrats promised the country the world in 06 and have done nothing. They are now the recipients of the vast amount of lobby money and Mrs. Bill Clinton has accepted more lobby money than all the Republican candidates combined, according to Mr. Obama.

You think this is over? This hasn’t even started.

By The Other Jack

February 11, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I checked the touring schedule for Pink Martini. I noticed that on several appearances, they will have a full Orchestra as part of the show. Man, I would love to see that, but they don’t come anywhere near Atlanta. They will be in Miami with an Orchestra, but that’s a bit of a drive. I will be traveling a lot this spring so maybe I can catch them somewhere else.

Went bowling Friday night. I hadn’t bowled since the Nixon Administration. I remember why. I stunk up the place. We all did. But we had a blast (it was a birthday party) and even the younger ones in the group were all still sore two days later.

By WhataJoke

February 11, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

Of course the Democrats have done nothing since re-taking Congress. The President vetoes everything they attempt to do. He has been unable to adjust to NOT having a RubberStamp Congress.

big DUH there, for the clueless.

By USinUK

February 11, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

We have hoped the Democrats that voted to send our young people into a horrible war would put aside partisan politics and support those troops

you mean like Bush does, “all talk and no trousers” (as they say here) - from Friday’s WaPo:

President Bush drew great applause during his State of the Union address last month when he called on Congress to allow U.S. troops to transfer their unused education benefits to family members. “Our military families serve our nation, they inspire our nation, and tonight our nation honors them,” he said.

A week later, however, when Bush submitted his $3.1 trillion federal budget to Congress, he included no funding for such an initiative, which government analysts calculate could cost $1 billion to $2 billion annually.

or how about the Democrat’s plan to require that troops receive the same amount of time at home as they serve in Afghanistan or Iraq - the Republicans voted that down, too.

so, please. just go out and shine up that yellow ribbon on your car if you’re going to use that tired old “the dems don’t support the troops” rhetoric. the rest of us aren’t buying what you’re selling.

By USinUK

February 11, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

Bowling - I get 3 games - 1 to warm up, the second to break 100 and the 3rd to head back to my home in the gutter. But, the beer is cheap! :-)

Does Atlanta still have duck-pin bowling, anywhere?? Or is that gone with the pink pig train??

Too bad about Pink Martini - I saw that they were going to be in DC, but I didn’t note the date (need to recommend the show to a friend of mine). Let’s just say that, in my case, gone are the days when I’d just hop in the car with a friend or 2 and drive a couple hundred miles for a show.

By The Other Jack

February 11, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

Whata Joke

So what have they presented to the President to regulate the oil companies that the president vetoed?

So what have they presented to the president to Fix the Health System?

So what have they presented to the president that woould have stopped exporting oiur jobs?

Big duh there for the person who speaks of what they know nothing about.

By GeezGuys

February 11, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

So what have they presented to the president to Fix the Health System?

The SCHIP bill, which he promptly vetoed, which was promptly overridden by a bipartisan effort of Congress. Dems leading the effort, of course.

Such work requires a lot of time and effort. They’re trying to get things done with a dunce at the wheel. Don’t expect much progress until they can clear the intestinal obstruction named Bush.

By The Other Jack

February 11, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

USinUK

so, please. just go out and shine up that yellow ribbon on your car if you’re going to use that tired old “the dems don’t support the troops” rhetoric. the rest of us aren’t buying what you’re selling.

I would be surprised if you did “buy it”. but we both know who you are going to vote for: anybody but a Republican. I can’t fault you for that because I am voting for anybody but a Democrat.

But you or I will not decide this election. but the people that will decide this election are undecided and moderates.

You can point out any specific item you want, but when a single speech by Harry Reid is played back, it is obvious how Democrats support our troops.

And what about the promises made in 06? Mrs. Bill Clinton will not win over many Republicans, male or female.

By The Other Jack

February 11, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

USinUK

We went to an underground bowling lanes on the Buford Hwy. and it was fantastic. It was clean, very well maintained, the tater tots were $2 and they had these huge four pitcher decanters that was almost enough for all of us. We had a blast.

I had forgot how much trauma is involved in slinging a 15 pound ball. My elbow is still a little sore.

I was hoping that Pink Martini was going to be a show at the FOX, maybe with the Atlanta Symphony. I would love to go to Miami, but tyhere would need to be several reasons to go that far.

What is duck bowling? Please tell me that you have not been throwing heavy balls at little ducks!

By USinUK

February 11, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

You can point out any specific item you want, but when a single speech by Harry Reid is played back, it is obvious how Democrats support our troops.

Is that like “please don’t bring up silly things like facts when I’m talking about issues”???

First of all, please cite what Harry Reid speech/quote to which you are referring. While I’m not a huge Harry Reid fan, I’ve never heard him say anything negative about the troops.

Secondly, what promises are you referring to?? Promises made by Hillary or by democratic congressional candidates??

Lastly, I’m not voting for Hill. Can’t stand her. So, we can both agree on that one, I think, and move on.

By The Other Jack

February 11, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

Geezeguys

You think the SCHIP Bill was going to fix our health care? The SCHIP bill had many problems along with adding a 61 cent tax on a single pack of cigarettes. The bill had so many add-ons that it was doomed from the start.

Didn’t the Democrats promise to FIX the system? Is it fixed? Don’t we need people in Washington that can actually get things done? In 1993, Washington had a democratic Congress, Senate and White House but couldn’t get health care reform passed.

So if you get a democrat in the White House, what will be your excuse them? Be careful what you wish for.

Now how about that oil company regulation promise? Do you think that will happen considering that the dims are now getting the vast majority of the lobby money from big oil? Why are our prices at the pump now higher than ever?

By USinUK

February 11, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

OMG … tater tots … (sigh) … oh, man, there are some foods you just can’t get here and tater tots are one of them. Cheeseburgers, Tater tots and Heinz 57 sauce … the perfect meal … yumyumyum. (I’d better stop … drool is bad for the keyboard)

I know exactly which lanes you went to on Buford Hwy - have been there loads of times! Friends of mine play in a league there!! Too funny :-) Sounds like you hyper-extended your elbow - Advil, TOJ - Advil is your friend at a time like this.

Duck pin bowling - just like regular bowling, but smaller balls and pins (and, thus, reduced likelihood of greivous bodily harm).

By The Other Jack

February 11, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Reid, we could start with his insistence that before we fund the troops, we have to start bringing them home. Nothing partisan about that.

The promises were made by several candidates that are now Congressmen. Nothing is getting done.

Would you vote for Mrs. Bill if it was between her and McCain? I talked to several Democrats this weekend that simply wouldn’t vote. Of course I am hearing the same thing about Republicans voting for McCain.

What if we had an election and no one came?

By The Other Jack

February 11, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

USinUK

See. See. America is great. We have tater tots.

That is a great bowling ally. Lots of families and young people on a Friday night. There were two little girls (5-6 years old) that would roll the ball, jump up and down, cheer, dance a little and go back and set down before the ball would make it down the lane. It was a great people watching place.

Duck pin. Seems like I have heard about that.

I am editing downtown, so I need to run. I don’t think they have Y-Fi in the suite so I’ll talk to you tomorrow.

I have one question I want to ask you since you apparently support Obama. I’ll make another post to keep politics and fun separate.

By Monica

February 11, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

A democrat will be President

If McCain ends up winning the Republican bid, you are right. There won’t be a Republican candidate.

By The Other Jack

February 11, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I’ll ask tomorrow. We are having a problem and I am outta here.

By GeezGuys

February 11, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this

You think the SCHIP Bill was going to fix our health care?

No, but it’s a start. You want instant gratification, stick with microwave brownies.

The bill had so many add-ons that it was doomed from the start.

The bill I’m talking about was passed into law.

Oil companies are giving money to Democratic candidates, knowing they’ll be in control soon. If they want to help elect Democrats, (who have pushed for raising average MPG standards) over Republicans, I’m happy to hear it.

Oil companies are making record profits because oil is in high demand, thanks to our record consumption, and China’s increased demand too. Basic economics for ya. Once we get idiots who talk about increasing our meager supply out, we can focus on developing other energy sources.

By USinUK

February 11, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

What if we had an election and no one came?

HA! would be funny if we didn’t have such disgustingly low turnout numbers to begin with.

Seriously, though - despite the superdelegate issue, Obama is really taking Hillary down when you look at the number of states he’s won and the momentum he has coming out of Super Tuesday and the victories this last weekend. IF his momentum continues (which is pretty likely), I think convention delegates will have to listen to the will of the democratic voters who have said overwhelmingly that they want Obama at the head of the ticket.

I’m not really a huge fan of the CA/FL/NY majority choosing our president - in either the primary or the general election.

I think you should let us ex-pats decide the election!! yeah, yeah!! that’s the ticket :-)

As for Reid - he wanted to set a deadline for the beginning of troop withdrawal as a condition of funding - to me, that’s supporting the troops by not allowing them to languish there with no goal, no end in sight.

By USinUK

February 11, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

See. See. America is great. We have tater tots.

Yes, I agree - Tater Tots is one of the top 10 things that make America great (democracy, the first amendment, tater tots)

:-)

By Don'tConfuseTheOleBoy

February 11, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

Oil companies are making record profits because oil is in high demand, thanks to our record consumption, and China’s increased demand too.

Please don’t confuse the ignant with actual FACTS. LOL

By Gale

February 11, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

Personally, I think Bill was the sock puppet and Hillary was the puppeteer. She is clearly the tougher of the two. Bill has the charisma of Obama, but I think Hillary is the one with the strength. What she may lack in charisma, she makes up in know how. Her plans have detail while Obama is vague. If the dems give Obama the nod, I’ll be among those voting for McCain. I’d prefer a moderate republican who knows how to get consensus, than a newbie who wants change but hasn’t proven he knows how to make it happen. The country is in too much of a mess for a freshman senator who thinks he can change things with a nice smile and encouraging words.

For the ones who swear they will stay home, fine. There are just as many who are excited enough to vote for the first time in many elections. It will even out.

By The Other Jack

February 11, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this

USinUK

OK, False alarm. (Videographers have worse writing skills than doctors.)

I’m not really a huge fan of the CA/FL/NY majority choosing our president - in either the primary or the general election.

It’s a screwy system. We are not a democracy but a representative Republic.

My question is this:

What would you want Obama to do that he actually could do. Presidential powers are limited.

By The Other Jack

February 11, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

GeezGuys

The Oil Companies sell a necessary commodity. they need to be regulated. Supply and demand does not mean that any industry can cripple the US economy whenever they like.

Jimmy Carter stood up to them and look what happened to him. They are now threatening us that if we do try to regulate their profits, there will be long lines again.

The Republicans have had the stigma of being in bed with big oil. But now that the dims control Congress it is all a matter of supply and demand.

Funny how a few billion in the right hands can change the mantra, isn’t it?

By USinUK

February 11, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

Gale -

The country is in too much of a mess for a freshman senator who thinks he can change things with a nice smile and encouraging words

Yeah - and this country is in too much of a mess for a hothead who has alienated the majority of the senate, not to mention his own party.

Oh, one more thing - this country is in too much of a mess for a senator who has NO CHARACTER who thinks it’s just fine and dandy to make fun of a teenage girl’s looks in a disgustingly crude joke at a republican fundraiser.

We need better than McCain for the country.

By The Other Jack

February 11, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

Gale

Personally, I think Bill was the sock puppet and Hillary was the puppeteer. She is clearly the tougher of the two.

Up until recently, I thought that, also. But now she can’t get him to shut up. He has hurt her chances.

Bill has the charisma of Obama, but I think Hillary is the one with the strength. What she may lack in charisma, she makes up in know how.

She knows how to play the Washington games. She knows who has the big bucks. Is that what we need? She is so connected to the old school Washington that she offers no chances of change. And Washington has stopped working.

Her plans have detail while Obama is vague.

That’s a huge thing. Not so much right now, but during the general election debates, he had better made some definite stances or McCain will eat him alive.

If the dems give Obama the nod, I’ll be among those voting for McCain.

I liked McCain in 2000.

I’d prefer a moderate republican who knows how to get consensus, than a newbie who wants change but hasn’t proven he knows how to make it happen. The country is in too much of a mess for a freshman senator who thinks he can change things with a nice smile and encouraging words.

He is well trained. His media persona rivals JFK. If you ever doubt that, take a look at his striking a pose at the end of his most dynamic statements. He has the 5% chin rise that makes him look presidential. All candidates are trained, but he is part of the new politico that look and move like movie stars.

For the ones who swear they will stay home, fine. There are just as many who are excited enough to vote for the first time in many elections. It will even out.

Agreed.

By USinUK

February 11, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

What would you want Obama to do that he actually could do. Presidential powers are limited.

Well, of course, the first thing is better judicial nominees. My god, the ninnies we’ve been lumbered with in both the Supremes, appeals and federal district courts.

Next would be better cabinet members and other federal nominees - political cronyism is a fact of life - but, I don’t mind it as much if they actually know what the heck they’re doing (case in point: a veterinarian being put in charge of women’s health at the FDA, “Brownie” at FEMA, a staunch anti-contraception advocate being in charge of family planning services at the Dept of Health … and on and on and on).

Third would be setting national agendas that are achievable and with which we can all agree - ending our dependence on OIL (foreign or otherwise), developing a health service for ALL Americans, encouraging companies to keep jobs inside the US rather than outsource them.

By The Other Jack

February 11, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Now, I really need to run. I think for lunch I will have a good old cheeseburger and maybe … tater tots. Maybe even onion rings.

So there. :)

Have a good afternoon.

By Aquagirl

February 11, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

The Oil Companies sell a necessary commodity. they need to be regulated. Supply and demand does not mean that any industry can cripple the US economy whenever they like.

Uh, yeah, it pretty much does. No matter what political system, supply and demand rules in one way or another.

Instead of regulating the oil industry, we need to make them less relevant. Most of the world’s oil belongs to other nations. Many of whom don’t like us. Our dependence on oil is bad in so many ways that we look like crackheads in search of our fix.

He is well trained. His media persona rivals JFK. If you ever doubt that, take a look at his striking a pose at the end of his most dynamic statements. He has the 5% chin rise that makes him look presidential.

Ha!

By USinUK

February 11, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

Now, I really need to run. I think for lunch I will have a good old cheeseburger and maybe … tater tots. Maybe even onion rings.

order an extra-large batch and have a few for me!!!

By USinUK

February 11, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this

Aquagirl -

Instead of regulating the oil industry, we need to make them less relevant.

preach it, sister!

By chuck

February 11, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

Good Morning all. I don’t get to post as much since I don’t have a student teacher anymore, but I had to weigh in on this one.

Whatajoke. You are kidding right? President Bush has vetoed exactly 8 bills in 8 years in office. Seven of those 8 have been in this congress, but 5 of those were vetoed because the democrats exceeded spending limits and they were warned ahead of time that if they exceeded those limits the bills would be vetoed. Two of the vetoes were on expansion of stem cell funding (one of these came while Republicans were in charge). The other had to do with water allocation.

BTW “geezguys”, the congress DID NOT override the president’s veto of SCHIP. It was sustained in both houses.

The only veto overridden by congress was the water allocation bill veto.

The SCHIP bill that DID PASS, was the REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ORIGINAL BILL PASSED BY THE REPUBLICANS IN THE LAST CONGRESS.

As for your assertion that these things are “hard work” and that they “take time”, weren’t you one of the ones deriding Bush when he said the same thing about the war in Iraq? In addition, have you forgotten 1994? When the Republicans took over Congress with the promise of a “Contract With America”, they passed 8 out of 10 of those items in the first 30 days after they took control. BTW, the president was a democrat.

By chuck

February 11, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

I have to agree with you aquagirl. We do need to make them irrelevant. I can’t find the video any more, but about 2-3 years ago on NBC News, there was a guy who invented a modification for gasoline engines that enabled them to get over 100 miles per gallon and cost less than a $100. NBC did a feature story on it then it disappeared. I would defnitely spend a hundred bucks to get even 70-80 MPG. Does anybody else remember seeing this?

By USinUK

February 11, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

Chuck -

I don’t remember that story, but I do know that there has been the technology to create fuel out of charcoal since WWII (there was even a movie about it called The Formula). No one pursued it since it was more expensive to produce when oil was under $40/barrel. With oil around $90/barrel, I’m surprised there’s not more talk about it.

By Newzwyre

February 11, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

Because I promised kimberly I would hunt down the article Andrew Sullivan had linked to regarding the “Hillary Derangement Syndrome”. All in the spirit of “balance”, of course –

All You Need is Hate – by Stanley Fish

Jason Horowitz described the world of Hillary haters, many of whom he has interviewed. Horowitz finds that the hostile characterizations of Clinton do not add up to a coherent account of her hatefulness. She is vilified for being a feminist and for not being one, for being an extreme leftist and for being a “warmongering hawk,” for being godless and for being “frighteningly fundamentalist,” for being the victim of her husband’s peccadilloes and for enabling them. “She is,” Horowitz concludes, “an empty vessel into which [her detractors] can pour everything they detest.”

This is not to say that there are no rational, well-considered reasons for opposing Clinton’s candidacy. You may dislike her policies (which she has not been reluctant to explain in great detail). You may not be able to get past her vote to authorize the Iraq war. You may think her personality unsuited to the tasks of inspiring and uniting the American people. You may believe that if this is truly a change election, she is not the one to bring about real change.

But the people and groups Horowitz surveys have brought criticism of Clinton to what sportswriters call “the next level,” in this case to the level of personal vituperation unconnected to, and often unconcerned with, the facts. These people are obsessed with things like her hair styles, the “strangeness” of her eyes — “Analysis of Clinton’s eyes is a favorite motif among her most rabid adversaries” — and they retail and recycle items from what Horowitz calls “The Crazy Files”: she’s Osama bin Laden’s candidate; she kills cats; she’s a witch (this is not meant metaphorically).

But this list, however loony-tunes it may be, does not begin to touch the craziness of the hardcore members of this cult.

Click on link for more - http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/all-you-need-is-hate/#more-85

By GeezGuys

February 11, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I do stand corrected on the SCHIP bill, I think the water bill was around the same time. Boy, what legislative excitement that was.

I didn’t deride Bush for saying we’d have to spend time and effort in Iraq. I do deride him for launching a full-scale invasion and basically taking over the country. We didn’t have the necessary military forces, or the plan, and his prancing about on his “Mission Accomplished” aircraft carrier says it all. Notice, the war was at a total stalemate until after the last election, when Rumsfeld was booted and Bush was forced to come up with a strategery.

Now we have an overextended military with units deployed for so long both people and materials are being stretched to the breaking point. More than anything else, this draws my ire. It’s lip service to the military.

On our point of agreement, it seems like every few years we see a story about 100 mpg cars, or cars that run on cooking oil, or whatever. I’m not a big conspiracy theory type, but it does strike me as odd we never hear about them again.

Newzwyre, that’s a great article. Hillary draws as much irrational hate and bashing as Obama gains irrational devotion. Had someone on NBC suggested Obama was “pimping out” his wife, there would have been front-page news. More to the point, nobody would have said such a thing. Family members campaign all the time, there’s never been such a stupid bias expressed, except against the Clintons.

By Monica

February 11, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

Hi Chuck! Missed you last week! I saw an episode of Mythbusters where they made a car run off of fast food french fry grease. If that will make it work, the possibilities are great! But then, of course, the Texas oil CEO’s who are in bed with the Middle East oil CEO’s would lose their fortune, and we can’t have that now, can we?

By kimberly

February 11, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Newzy! Misogyny knows no cultural bounds, it seems — not even in America. Two steps forward, one step back. Unless you live in Georgia, that is; then it’s three steps back pretty much every day. I’m fairly certain my lil’ ol’ vote doesn’t count at all between all this primary chaos and the electoral college. But if’n I don’t show up, I don’t get the lil’ ol’ sticker wif’ a cute lil’ peach on it!

By Newzwyre

February 11, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

kimberly, the largest issue that keeps me from warming to Senator Clinton is the feeling that she works on a “need to know” basis and if she decides we-the-people don’t need to know something, I doubt we’d be told. I do believe that she has the best of intentions but I find it difficult to trust to the good intentions of any politician at this point. Also, the people around her have such a reputation of close-mouthed secrecy and “dirty pool” that it makes my “spidey-senses” start tingling. We’ve had enough of that with the Bush administration.

We need to start taking “accountability” seriously and I don’t know that she would.

By The Other Jack

February 11, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this

Bad news for all

the good news is that Nitrogen Powered cars are just around the corner. The bad news is that the delivery system for nitrogen will be owned by … you guessed it: Big Oil.

Lessening our dependence on foreign oil is a great thing, but the people in power (big oil) will still be in power.

By Copyleft

February 12, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this

quote: Reid, we could start with his insistence that before we fund the troops, we have to start bringing them home. Nothing partisan about that.

You’re right… there isn’t. Since our troops are fighting and dying for no reason (they’re certainly not defending America) and this war is a proven mistake, insisting on bringing them home is the greatest “SUPPORT” any official can give.

And there’s nothing partisan about that. In a hole, stop digging. Pretty clear-cut, don’t you think?

By USinUK

February 12, 2008 8:09 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

the good news is that Nitrogen Powered cars are just around the corner

I don’t know about Nitrogen-powered cars, but I can tell you that I’ve seen an episode of Top Gear where they tested a hydrogen-powered GM prototype. I. Want. One. BAD. All the controls were in the wheel which can be transferred from left- to right-hand drive (handy for those of us near the continent). The actual body of the car could be changed out so that you could have a coupe one day and an SUV the next - the base never changes. It was the coolest thing I have ever seen!!

By USinUK

February 12, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this

kimberly -

Misogyny knows no cultural bounds, it seems — not even in America

Most people don’t hate Hill because she’s a woman, most people hate her because she’s Hill. I couldn’t care less that she has ovaries - I can’t stand her because of her support of the wretched 2005 bankruptcy bill.

By The Other Jack

February 12, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

USinUk

Well, of course, the first thing is better judicial nominees. My god, the ninnies we’ve been lumbered with in both the Supremes, appeals and federal district courts.

I can see why you would want different judges. Of course that all depends on who retires or dies.

Next would be better cabinet members and other federal nominees - political cronyism is a fact of life - but, I don’t mind it as much if they actually know what the heck they’re doing (case in point: a veterinarian being put in charge of women’s health at the FDA, “Brownie” at FEMA, a staunch anti-contraception advocate being in charge of family planning services at the Dept of Health … and on and on and on).

I can also see that and since that is an important point, I can also see why you would be against Mrs. Clinton. I guess it is unfair to judge her because of bad decisions her husband made, but you know she will be judged by that standard.

Third would be setting national agendas that are achievable and with which we can all agree - ending our dependence on OIL (foreign or otherwise),

This is a problem. You were right about hydrogen, not nitrogen. Long day yesterday. But our dependence is all about the private sector. Even if automobile manufacturers were forced to comply with standards that would phase out gasoline powered cars, it would be years before a difference would be seen. And like I said, the same criminals would be in charge of the new fuels so it wouldn’t be long before they would be jacking us up again.

It needs to happen, but it is an extremely complicated issue considering how many uses for oil we have, including most plastics.

developing a health service for ALL Americans,

I’m with you there. ALL Americans. The “poor” here just wait until the next election cycle and wait on the new benefits. I am a contractor so I buy my own insurance and it stinks. Maybe I’ll just stop working if Hillary gets in so I can get free health insurance.

encouraging companies to keep jobs inside the US rather than outsource them.

That is also a big problem. Both parties have sent them overseas.

All the things you listed need to be done (Except the judge deal. I don’t mind the new judges). Can Obama get them done? Maybe we’ll see.

John Kerry claimed he was going to provide the US with Universal Health Care and no one thought he would be able to do with with a Congress controlled by Republicans. But that didn’t stop him from making promises that he knew he would be breaking. Americans are tired of politicians that will say anything in order to be elected. i think that fact and his shrew of a wife cost him the election.

Obama will need much more than “hope” to beat a Republican. He will need less presidential posing and more ideas on getting something done.

BTW. I lied about the cheeseburger and tater tots. I almost never eat red meat. There is a new chain here called Five Guys that make the very best burgers I have ever eaten. But I try to stay with the more healthy stuff. Yesterday I had the Ru Sans Sushi buffet. I love good sushi and Ru Sans buffet ain’t great, but it was good enough.

Running again today so I will be in and out.

By The Other Jack

February 12, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

Copyleft

You’re right… there isn’t. Since our troops are fighting and dying for no reason (they’re certainly not defending America) and this war is a proven mistake, insisting on bringing them home is the greatest “SUPPORT” any official can give.

Proven by who? Salon.com?

And they are fighting for nothing? Kool-aid, anyone?

By The Other Jack

February 12, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Most people don’t hate Hill because she’s a woman, most people hate her because she’s Hill

Do you have any idea what fun it is to watch progressives finally see the Clintons the way the rest of the world has seen them since 1992?

They are trashy, power hungry, dishonest and ruthless people who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. Welcome aboard.

By lozen

February 12, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

They are trashy, power hungry, dishonest and ruthless people who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. And that’s so unlike born-with-silver-spoon-in-mouth, power hungry, dishonest, ruthless people (Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, Cheney) who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals! Jeez.

By USinUK

February 12, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

ahhhh … memory lane … Ru Sans - my first ever sushi experience back in 1989 with someone who was at the time a date and is now one of my best friends.

5 guys - I used to live in DC where we had 5 guys burgers. O.M.G. Sooooo messy but sooooo good.

Okay. Subject at hand … judges - you’re right about openings with the Supremes, but Obama would have the right to go in and clean house with the federal judges. And, given the shenanigans that have gone on with this administration, I think the DoJ needs a good scrub, top to bottom.

As for health care - the poor pay for health care, too, through their taxes (Grady isn’t free). Like you, I used to be self-employed, so I remember that “oof” feeling I got whenever I opened my health care premium bill. It doesn’t have to be that way.

In my opinion, health care shouldn’t be treated as a commodity, something that is determined by supply/demand. To me, health care is like education and safe food - one of those things that is done for the general welfare. It benefits EVERYone in the country - not just the poor - if there is good access to health care (disease eradication, preventative care leading is less expensive than critical care, etc)

Lastly, I wasn’t really comparing Obama and Hillary - I was more focused on what he could do while in office vs. what he would do differently than Hillary.

By USinUK

February 12, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

They are trashy, power hungry, dishonest and ruthless people who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. Welcome aboard.

don’t pull out the cork on the champagne bottle just yet - you missed the last half of my answer: “I can’t stand her because of her support of the wretched 2005 bankruptcy bill.”

By USinUK

February 12, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

Lozen -

And that’s so unlike born-with-silver-spoon-in-mouth, power hungry, dishonest, ruthless people (Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, Cheney) who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals! Jeez.

the current administration is just a better class of trash

:-)

By lozen

February 12, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, I agree with you. Yes, USinUK some people hate Clinton for other reasons than she’s a woman but there are many who do hate her just because she’s a woman. Carl Bernstein dissing her for having thick ankles - for cryin’ out loud. And then comments like she’s power hungry! Show me a friggin’ politician who isn’t power hungry. Bush and his string pullers are the epitome of power hungry and secretive and liars. They are a bunch of thugs and anybody, including Clinton, will be better than them! How does TOJ presume to know all this about the Clintons - from Rush? From FOX? Like his sources are all true and correct, but he sneers at those who get their info (he thinks) from MoveOn.com and Salon.com. But then he’s more intelligent than anyone else on the blog right? I guess he has ‘sources’. He’s certainly more arrogant than anyone else on the blog!

By kimberly

February 12, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

US in UK, I also have a huge problem with the 2005 bankruptcy bill, and confronted my own Congressman (R-big money weasel) at one of his “town hall” meetings about it, while he was busy flashing his little pie charts about why we should privatize social security. We are simpatico on this atrocity that the government, and the legislators and laws therein, work for corporations and not for people who pay the taxes, and do the living, working, and dying here.

With regard to the ideological notions that our political leaders should be free of corruption, I maintain that it is not possible given the system we HAVE. As long as money controls the electoral process, we will have collusion between our leaders and some form of Satan. I like Hillary Clinton, not because I think she’s pure of heart or free from puppet strings (NONE of them are, but feel free, fundies, to pump that delusion at will), but because she’s competent (how refreshing!), tough (slung mud works wonders on the complexion) and knows how to get things done. If Jimmy Carter’s administration taught us anything, it’s that a man with great ideology and purity of heart (the occasional adulterous lustings aside) is completely ineffetive at leadership unless he can work within the channels, avenues, alliances, and protocols of the cesspool known as Washington D.C.

I don’t dislike Obama at all; in fact, I think he’s terrific! Either one gets my support this year with the utmost hopes that he or she will END THIS DISASTROUS OCCUPATION OF IRAQ, stop shoveling our treasury into the hands of war-profiteers, (via borrowed money that we now owe) and return the government to its true purpose: to serve the people, not be a noose around our necks while playing favorites to a few. I guess I’m just getting old…. logistics mean more to me than warm fuzzies. Sigh… It happens. Either way: DEMS ‘08!!!

By USinUK

February 12, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

Lozen -

Carl Bernstein dissing her for having thick ankles - for cryin’ out loud. And then comments like she’s power hungry! Show me a friggin’ politician who isn’t power hungry.

Like Carl Bernstein should comment on ANYone’s looks, toad that he is. It has more to do with the “Villagers” - the entrenched DC media (Bernstein, Woodward, etc) who saw the Clintons as intruders who didn’t belong and proceeded to shoot them down at every possible opportunity.

And, I agree with you re: politicans being power-hungry and/or ambitious. I never understood that complaint when people said it about Bill - if a man/woman knows at age 16 that they want to be president, then work hard and do what it takes to get elected, why is that a bad thing?

By The Other Jack

February 12, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

UsinUK

I was fortunate. My first Sushi experience was in Hawaii and paid for by a client. It has never been that good since. Ru Sans can be a little nasty, but generally good. East Atlanta Thai is great and not very expensive. It has a great lunch.

Five guys is the way to go. If I am going to suffer through a day or two of digesting cow, that is the cow I want to eat.

Believe it or not, I agree with the basic premise of Universal Health care, but I would rather health care just be affordable. It used to be affordable. But because of lack of tort reform and then the fact that HIV caused so many really dumb decisions in the name of political correctness, that the costs skyrocketed. There were many other reasons including lack of regulation because of Congressional payoffs, but health care should not cost what it does.

HMOs should not decide hospital stays. Having a medical tourism client has shown me the enormous overpricing that only benifits the corporations that own the hospitals, certainly not the doctors.

Again, get the money out of Congress and we could fix this country, but neither party wants that.

You don’t like Mrs. Clinton because of a single symptom of the overall problem. She is for sale, just like her husband was. It is all about the power. It is all about the money.

And as far as those old evil rich Republicans, you really need to do some reading on the overall wealth of the Republican Party as opposed to the overall wealth of the Democrats. People like Nancy Pelosi and other limousine liberals are as ruthless as it gets.

Pelosi’s golf course is still dumping chemicals into the ground water despite repeated warnings from the EPA. That was the Country Club where she promised that “common people” would be able to play without the outrageous membership fees, but the last time I checked, it was Members Only.

And look into her fighting for the Unions: that is except the Union Reps she had physically thrown off her non-union vineyards.

And the Kennedies? Where do I start?

There is no difference between the rich Democrats and the rich Republicans except the media doesn’t monitor the Dims like they monitor the Pubs. There is no Republican Micheal Moore and if there was, where could we see those “films”?

By USinUK

February 12, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

kimberly -

I guess I flinch whenever I hear a generalization like “mysogeny” or “people hate Clinton because she’s a woman”. Some do - you’re right. But, I think more don’t really care about her gender.

All-in-all, I think we’re lucky - we have 2 strong candidates to pick from - plus a fantastic pool for Veep!!

GO DEMS!!!

By Monica

February 12, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

As for health care - the poor pay for health care, too, through their taxes (Grady isn’t free). That’s why Grady is millions in debt. A good percentage of the poor people who go to Grady don’t pay taxes because they don’t have jobs. They don’t have homes either. It’s hard to send a bill to the 75-85 connector beneath the bridge.

Sorry to change the subject, but a few weeks ago on the news one of the anchors slipped in the fact that Gov. Sonny cut $55 million from the budget that was earmarked for Grady.

By The Other Jack

February 12, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

Iozen

How does TOJ presume to know all this about the Clintons - from Rush? From FOX?

I lived through 8 years of the scandals d’jour. NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, The BBC. Were you asleep for eight years?

I also read. Gary Alridge: Unlimited Access. The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. It Takes a Village. Enough! Jaun Williams. They Think You Are Stupid: Herman Cain. Do As I Say (Not As I Do).

By USinUK

February 12, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

Monica -

A good percentage of the poor people who go to Grady don’t pay taxes because they don’t have jobs.

So, groceries are now tax-free? Clothes? Booze? Cigs? Mickey-D’s? Gasoline? Services? The term “taxes” isn’t limited to income tax.

By Copyleft

February 12, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

OtherJack: We invaded on the assumption that Saddam was a threat to us. The invasion proved he was not a threat to America at all. Thus, Iraq War = mistake.

Insisting that we end this blunder, rather than prolonging it, is hardly “partisan.” Pretending there’s some way to eke out a “victory” while wasting billions of dollars and thousands of lives for pure ego… now, THAT’s partisan.

By kimberly

February 12, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

My reference to misogyny is not to imply that it’s the only reason Sen. Clinton’s electability may be questionable; rather, it’s based on what MEN have told me. “On a visceral level,” explained a 30-year-old military veteran, “Men have a harder time accepting a woman as an authority figure than they do a man of any race or background. We just can’t stand her!” That, and the rampant double-standard by which everything [the dreaded] “she” is and does is measured, while the exact same qualities, as Lozen pointed out, are perfectly acceptable in a man.

As painful as it is, I must also concede that there is still a real possibility we’ll be forced to endure yet another ego-maniacal, self-fulfilling-prophesy delusionist, belligerent, war-mongering, anti-civil-rights, “Go-eff-yourself” A—H-LE Republican in the White House next year. Personal contigency plans in progress.

By Monica

February 12, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

USinUK, you got me! I was thinking about income tax. However, I’m betting that a very small percentage of that sales tax makes it to Grady, especially since their funding was reduced drastically.

By USinUK

February 12, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

Monica -

Grady is a public hospital - it isn’t meant to be “for profit” (ed note: the whole idea of a hospital being profitable is abhorrent to me, anyway) - it’s meant to receive public funding. Especially as Grady is a teaching hospital, as well.

But, then, I’m not surprised that this Governor/Legislature has left Grady to wallow. The “Two Georgias” feud continues.

By lozen

February 12, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

TOJ, and you’ve been asleep for the past seven years, right?

By USinUK

February 12, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

kimberly -

there will always be neanderthals - men who think that a women’s place is in the kitchen (barefoot, etc). and, yes, as I said a couple of weeks ago, whether it’s Hillary or Margaret Thatcher’s clone, whatever woman the public elects to be the first President is going to have holy hell to pay - from cleavage to ankles, hair to nails, hats to bags, EVERYthing will be scrutinized.

me, I’d love to see the first female Commander in Chief actually be someone who has served - there are a number of women who have risen in the ranks who would be more than qualified. I think it will be critical in shutting a significant number of gobs - in particular, the people who say “the military will never listen to a woman”. If that woman once had stars on her shoulders, I’ll bet they will.

By Monica

February 12, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

That’s my point. Public hospitals should not try to make a profit, but they should be able to make ends meet. Grady can’t. I’m personally for having all counties that Grady services share some of the financial responsibility. Of course, then taxes would increase, and we can’t have that!

By USinUK

February 12, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

Monica -

I’m personally for having all counties that Grady services share some of the financial responsibility. Of course, then taxes would increase, and we can’t have that!

I’m with ya, sistah! Grady is well known across the SE for it’s excellent care of the critically wounded (or, as an EMT I once knew said, “If you’re ever shot or stabbed, you want to go to Grady”). It used to be that Kennestone was the place to go if you were severely burned and Piedmont was the place to go if you were paralyzed - but, I don’t know if that still holds.

The problem with running a hospital so that it will “break even” means that you have to have projections for what you will need during the year. For instance, “we’ll serve 10,000 gun shot victims, so we’ll need $15,000/victim for a total of $150M. We’ll have 12,000 AIDS patients who will require roughly $20,000/patient, for a total of $240M” … and so forth - then hope you don’t exceed those totals.

Unfortunately, askin’ ain’t gettin’. Even if they are able to accurately forecast their fiscal needs each year, that doesn’t mean that the guys under the Gold Dome are willing to give it.

By Newzwyre

February 12, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

When Women Rule - by Nocholas Kristof

A notable share of the great leaders in history have been women: Queen Hatshepsut and Cleopatra of Egypt, Empress Wu Zetian of China, Isabella of Castile, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Catherine the Great of Russia, and Maria Theresa of Austria. —- Scholars find that women, compared with men, tend to excel in consensus-building and certain other skills useful in leadership. If so, why have female political leaders been so much less impressive in the democratic era?

[snip]

In one common experiment, the “Goldberg paradigm,” people are asked to evaluate a particular article or speech, supposedly by a man. Others are asked to evaluate the identical presentation, but from a woman. Typically, in countries all over the world, the very same words are rated higher coming from a man.

In particular, one lesson from this research is that promoting their own successes is a helpful strategy for ambitious men. But experiments have demonstrated that when women highlight their accomplishments, that’s a turn-off. And women seem even more offended by self-promoting females than men are.

This creates a huge challenge for ambitious women in politics or business: If they’re self-effacing, people find them unimpressive, but if they talk up their accomplishments, they come across as pushy braggarts.

The broader conundrum is that for women, but not for men, there is a tradeoff in qualities associated with top leadership. A woman can be perceived as competent or as likable, but not both.

[snip]

Female leaders face these impossible judgments all over the world. An M.I.T. economist, Esther Duflo, looked at India, which has required female leaders in one-third of village councils since the mid-1990s. Professor Duflo and her colleagues found that by objective standards, the women ran the villages better than men. For example, women constructed and maintained wells better, and took fewer bribes.

Yet ordinary villagers themselves judged the women as having done a worse job, and so most women were not re-elected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10kristof.html?em&ex=1202965200&en=4209d0dabc575142&ei=5087%0A

By Lyrazel

February 12, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

Forgive me but its the people surrounding Presidents who make decisions for this country now and we must oblige these non-elected officials without voice while they wheel and deal our constitutional rights out the door. My real issue is: who will Hilliary/Obama/ John/Mike/Ron put into high offices like Sec. of State, Defense, etc.? Who will they put into vacated supreme court seats? I don’t give a damn about gender or race. Integrity is easy to buy with enough TV ads.

By Gordon

February 12, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this

Barack beats McCain, McCain beats Hillary. If you think Republican (women or not) aren’t excited, wait until Hillary is the Democratic nominee. You’ll see plenty of excitement then. I disagree with Obama on most issues, but at least he seems genuine.

I think it is hilarious listening to libs like Andrea talk about “making history.” The same people who say they dream about a society that looks beyond race and gender are always the ones who bring it up, and in this case use it as a reason to vote for someone. I hear that 10 times as much as reasons to vote on the issues from Democrats. It’s all about feelings.

By USinUK

February 12, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

Gordon -

The same people who say they dream about a society that looks beyond race and gender are always the ones who bring it up

maybe that’s because it’s the conservatives who never think there’s a problem.

as for the in this case use it as a reason to vote for someone. - that’s not at all what Andrea or anyone else on the forum is saying. What Andrea said was that people were excited about which way they could make history - but not that they were voting for that person BECAUSE Obama is black or BECAUSE Hillary is a woman.

I suggest you reread some of the postings here as you have obviously missed the point(s).

By lozen

February 12, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

Newswyre, great info. Of course, we all knew that already, right? Hillary is the first politician I know of who is called too political to be good at politics! She’s either too emotional - or she’s the ice lady. How many people talked about GW’s disadvantage because his father had been prez? None! How many people feared Bush, Sr. being the real power in the WH if GW was elected? None. All the things even fair minded people are talking about as being disadvantages for Clinton were there in the Bush dynasty and nobody worried about it. So now we’re in a war because Saddam tried to kill Bush, Sr. Jeez!

By lozen

February 12, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

And Gordon I think it’s hilarious to listen to you CON-servatives make excuses for the past seven years and try to say you didn’t vote entirely on feeling - FEAR in the last election!

By Newzwyre

February 12, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

do me a favor? Go to AJC Home and take a look at the photo they have up of Ron Isley. Is it me or does he bear a striking resemblance to a Ferangi? Kind of creepy…

By Monica

February 12, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

I didn’t notice the picture, Newz. I was too astounded by the headline that Thriller is 25 years old. Ouch!

By The Other Jack

February 12, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this

Copyleft

OtherJack: We invaded on the assumption that Saddam was a threat to us.

No. We invaded on the fact that Saddam Hussan was a serious threat to our allies and sadly, the same oil industry that is now paying off the dims. We WOULD have gone into Iraq whether it was GW Bush or Al Gore. As much as the dims want to distance themselves from the action, Washington sent us to Iraq.

Insisting that we end this blunder, rather than prolonging it, is hardly “partisan.” Pretending there’s some way to eke out a “victory” while wasting billions of dollars and thousands of lives for pure ego… now, THAT’s partisan.

Pure Ego? You really need to stop going to Salon and MoveOn for your “facts”.

No one wants to stay in Iraq. The options are these, we pull another Viet Nam and split, like the dims want. That concedes the country to whomever, and just like Viet Nam, we have no influence over that country. Yes, that’s sounds wonderful until you consider where the country is and what is there.

We continue to advance and clean out pockets of fascists that are beating women and killing any opposition. We will need to stay there in bases, like most Democrats have admitted. The fighting has recently gone down substantially and while there will always be problems, to “cut and run” is insane.

But ego? What you guys need to accept as fact in order for you to say things like that is staggering.

By lozen

February 12, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

Newswyre, Ferangi fer shur? Did they use him for the model?

By HeeHaw

February 12, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

sadly, the same oil industry that is now paying off the dims

the oil industry must foresee the Democrats winning then, and no longer wish to Pay off the Repugs like they have been for years.

thanks for the insight on who will win the Presidential election.

By Here's yer facts, Woody

February 12, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

Fact: Osama Bin Laden remains free, while the rights of Americans are being eroded.

Fact: The United States government has spent billions of dollars (borrowed, as in debt with interest) in Iraq paying privately-owned firms for their “services” in no-bid, unaudited contracts.

Fact: The United States soldiers deployed to Iraq did what they were asked to do. They removed Saddam from power.

Fact: The United States military is depleted, stretched, overextended, and less able to defend our homeland than they were five years ago.

Fact: Osama Bin Laden remains free to manage his ever-growing organization while US soldiers try NOT to get their limbs and heads blown off in the middle of a pointless civil war / free trade for Halli Zone.

Fact: Some Americans get wood thinking about war. Big wood. They watch John Wayne movies and shout, “Kill ‘em all and let God sort it out!”

Fact: Those Americans will vote for John McKillEmAll in November.

Fact: Those Americans can bite me.

By Monica

February 12, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

As much as I hate the fact that we are in Iraq, I feel that leaving now will be the worst thing that we could do. I agree that we should not have gone to war, and that we did not really go to war because someone thought there were WMD’s (nice red herring), but I don’t see how we can leave yet. There isn’t yet the light at the end of the tunnel, but there’s not one behind us anymore either.

By Archie

February 12, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

Hillary is the first politician I know of who is called too political to be good at politics! She’s either too emotional - or she’s the ice lady. This is a good point Lozen. None! How many people feared Bush, Sr. being the real power in the WH if GW was elected? None. All the things even fair minded people are talking about as being disadvantages for Clinton were there in the Bush dynasty and nobody worried about it. Those are very good points Lozen and I think people just won’t admit they’re sexist just as they won’t admit they’re racist. People say those things exist but they always point the finger at someone else. I do believe that some of Obama’s support is irrational pride but the struggle for blacks has been different in America and although the irrational pride in Obama bothers me the irrational dislike of Hillary is just as bad. I have heard people say things that are slanderous and they could be easily sued if it were me or someone else here. Lozen or anyone my questions are this: If you’re a democrat and you dislike the war then how do you vote for McCain? If you think 50 million people including yourself not having health insurance is a problem how do you vote for anyone other than Clinton or Obama? My point is if you have a hot button issue then how do you logically vote against that. One guy on the Sharpton show said that he was against the war but if Hillary won then he would vote for McCain,who has said he would continue the status quo. That same guy said he was mad at Hillary because of her vote on the war btw.

By lozen

February 12, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

No one wants to stay in Iraq. You wanta bet Haliburton doesn’t want to stay in Iraq along with other private firms - Blackwater - for example, that are making millions. “We can’t pull out now! We can’t. We’ll die; the muslims will get us!” Sounds just like Vietnam … before we pulled out. Of course then it was “…the commies will get us!” The commies didn’t get us. The commies didn’t take over Vietnam. All the asian countries did not fall like dominoes to the commies! The commies didn’t invade the USA! No, the commies went bankrupt and fell apart because they kept spending all their money on wars! Great bumper sticker: “Just let North Korea threaten to invade the U.S. … Bush will attack Venezuela immediately.”

By chuck

February 12, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

USinUK, I know you’ve been across the pond too long, but let me give you a little lesson in American Government. Your statement:

you’re right about openings with the Supremes, but Obama would have the right to go in and clean house with the federal judges.

This is not true. Federal judges under article III of the Constitution are appointed for life (though the Constitution actually says that they serve “during good behavior” it is usually just paraphrased as being appointed for life). This includes all federal judges that are appointed under Article III which is everybody except for the U.S. Tax Courts which are appointed for a specified term.

Lozen, if you want to see the difference between the Power Hungry” Republicans and the Clintons you need look no farther than what they did as Billary left office in 2001. When they left they were millions of dollars in debt with legal fees. Then they began to beg for money to cover those. At the same time they sold some pardons, took HUGE advances for books not yet written, Bill took jobs “consulting” for the Arabs and other foreign countries and now 8 years later they are worth tens of millions of dollars. Almost as good as that WHITEWATER investment hillary made. You can take the trash out of the trailer park but…well, you know what I mean.

Now what did GHW Bush do. Made a few speaking fees that for the most part were given to charities. Apparently his “lust for power” was for the good of the country and NOT HIMSELF. It remains to be seen what George II will do, but I think that he will follow his father’s example. In any event, I trust him in power way beyond anyone whose last name is Clinton.

Kimberly, on what do you base your proclamation that Hillary is “competent”? I’d like to know what it is that she has actually accomplished as a U.S. Senator.

By lozen

February 12, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

Hi Archie. We humans like to think we’re rational creatures and the only thinking animals don’t we? We are not rational. We all think with our feelings and vote out of fear, pride, sexism, racism, and all that other feeling stuff. Some of us admit it and others, like Gordon, deny it. We take the exact same information and twist it to suit our preconceived notions. I like Hillary. I admire Hillary. I want to see a woman lead this country before I die. She’s no more perfect than any of the men who are running, but, based on 40 years of study about differences in leadership styles, (the info provided by Newswyre regarding female leadership earlier, for example) I truly believe she would be the best leader. I like Obama and if he’s the candidate I’ll be happy. But I believe Hillary is the one to get the job done now. Yes, she’s tough, she’s smart, and she has Washington connections! Even with all that know how, I’m not sure she (or anyone) can do much to salvage the reputation of the U.S. after the last seven years. I know beyond a doubt she will be better than “John McKillEmAll”

By chuck

February 12, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this

Lozen…are you kidding me?

*The commies didn’t take over Vietnam. All the asian countries did not fall like dominoes to the commies! *

April 17, 1975 the Kmer Rouge toppled the government of Cambodia and took over (They were of course COMMUNISTS)

April 30, 1975, South Viet Namese Army laid down its arms and a COMMUNIST government was installed.

December 1975 the Pathet Lao overthrew the government of Laos and took charge (They were, of course, COMMUNISTS).

I’ll give you the fact that they didn’t overtly attack the U.S., but everything else you said was false. On the other hand, what would you call the current trade deficit with China? Maybe not a military attack, but it could be considered an attack on our economy.

By Newzwyre

February 12, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

Archie, how does an anti-Iraq War Democrat vote for McCain? The same way a pro-life Republican votes for Obama; they consider more than that one single issue before pulling the lever.

If you are basing your vote on one single issue, you probably won’t be voting for a candidate who doesn’t agree with you. If the war is the most important issue to that Democrat, I don’t see them voting for McCain. If it is only one of several that he thinks are important, he may choose to ignore the war votes in favor of McCains stand on torture or the environment or civil liberties.

Most people realize that there is no “perfect candidate” who will agree with them on every issue, so we choose the one who agrees with us on most of them.

By lozen

February 12, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

Okay, this is why I think TOJ is one of Chuck’s alter egoes:

*By chuck February 12, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this USinUK, I know you’ve been across the pond too long, but let me give you a little lesson in American Government. *

Does that snide, cocky, arrogance not sound just like TOJ? I think Chuck got tired of always having to be the saintly xtian and decided to let his evil side really come out in TOJ.

Bill consulted with Arabs did he? I know GHW didn’t have nuthin’ to do with them Arabs! Maybe he didn’t need to. His father and grandfather may have consulted with Arabs enough that GHW and GW don’t need to; they just collect the profits!

By chuck

February 12, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

USinUK, you said:

The same people who say they dream about a society that looks beyond race and gender are always the ones who bring it up

maybe that’s because it’s the conservatives who never think there’s a problem.

Don’t you think it is really more that the Conservatives judge people on their MERIT and not their skin color or gender? I can garauntee you that if you look at political/social organizations, you will find more women and minorities in positions of leadership in CONSERVATIVE groups than you will in Liberal ones. I’m talking about REAL LEADERSHIP positions here and not the “token” ones with no authority given to minorities in liberal organizations.

This is also true if you look at Republican vs. democrat administrations.

By HeeHaw

February 12, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

current trade deficit with China? Maybe not a military attack, but it could be considered an attack on our economy.

Didn’t we Americans INVITE them in, being such prolific consumers down at WalMart, etc? Or American Businesses who wanted the higher profits a cheaper labor allowed?

That is somehow a CHINA attack? We INVITED them.

By chuck

February 12, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

No Lozen, he didn’t consult WITH them, he consulted FOR them and is on a retainer worth MILLIONS each year. As usual you have no substantive reply to what I said. I defy you to show me even ONE THIN DIME OF PROFIT that ANY Bush received from Iraq, Saudi Arabia or ESPECIALLY Dubai.

BTW, it is Dog who is Schizoid, not me. I would NEVER take on another identity except for a joke and I’ve only done that once and immediately owned up to it.

NOPE Lozen, I’m a man and I stand behind what I say.

By Monica

February 12, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this

On AJC home page: 3 circuses to pick from in ATL

Kinda like our candidates?

By Misogyny Alert!

February 12, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

Chuck at 3:17:

“I’m a man and I stand behind what I say.”

Non-sequitur? Or sexist point? You decide.

By Misogyny Alert!

February 12, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

Here’s one for Shaunti and Andrea!

Your tax dollars at work in Baghdad: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4278133&page=1

By Archie

February 12, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this

Thanks Newswyre, I should have said if the most important issue is the war how can a democrat vote for McCain? If you read my entire post you will see I used the example of a guy I heard on a radio show who said the war was his hot-button issue. I like Hillary. I admire Hillary. I want to see a woman lead this country before I die. Lozen I feel the same way and I am a black man. I don’t have the irrational pride that some of my people have and I feel like there will be a black male as president in my lifetime just as there has been a black governor in my lifetime. I have been irrational in the past but I have gotten better with age and I am voting for ideas not a man or a woman. People claim a certain issue is so important yet vote for a candidate that is totally the opposite philosophically. I hope that someone reading this blog will actually visit the Hillary website and see what she’s about versus the unverifiable b.s. that’s put out and the same with the other candidates republican or democrat. I understand Newswyre but I really think Lozen nails it and it’s kinda sad that feelings are more important than benefits and a philosophy. I just heard a white guy say he was changing his vote to vote for Obama and he is a republican and as I listen to him basically it just sounds like he likes Obama. This guy is married to a black woman just to describe him as he did himself. My point is he didn’t mention any issues just that he thought Obama is a good role model compared to Clinton so being irrational isn’t confined to just African-americans. All of these important issues and you change your vote because you just like the way someone carries himself,heck, most americans know how to behave and are good role models. As Lozen said people aren’t perfect but you still can find good role models and being president is a job.

By Martha Z. Martinez / WomenOnGuard.com

February 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this

I hope you are right Andrea, and women come to their senses in this historical election. I personally hope that women develope the buddy system that men have enjoyed all these years and unite to elect Hillary.

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

Federal judges under article III of the Constitution are appointed for life

You’re right … I was thinking of cleaning out the AGs, but conflated them with nominating federal judges.

As for Don’t you think it is really more that the Conservatives judge people on their MERIT and not their skin color or gender?

No, that hasn’t been my experience with conservatives. My experience has been “If there is a pay differential between men and women, let the market decide. If there is a problem hiring minorities, let the market decide. If there is a problem with discrimination against gays, let the market decide.”

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

dang - hit post before I meant to …

to conclude - the whole “let the market decide” doesn’t address inequities or even admit that there’s a problem. you may like to dress it up as “merit”, but the fact is, it just enables the continuation of the problem.

By Gale

February 13, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this

Name one thing Obama has accomplished. Not that he is an inspiring speaker, which I grant he is. But what has he accomplished. What bill did he write or even help write?

By The Other Jack

February 13, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

Lozen

You caught me. You figured it out. There is actually only one conservative in the entire world and I am him.

By HeeHaw

February 13, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this

let the market decide

You mean that same The Market that cleaned up the air and water, which of course had nothing to do with either the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

That The Market?

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

There is actually only one conservative in the entire world and I am him.

Now, that’s funny.

By The Other Jack

February 13, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I watched Enron last night. While it was very biased, it was a good flick. It completely ignored any relationship Ken Lay had with Clinton and it really tried to connect Bush with the scandals.

Like most documentaries, if you look past the overt political bias, sometimes there are good points.

You would probably love it.

Also found a new restaurant in the Hood. It is a restored old train Depot on Memorial, near the new Glenwood development. Upscale with great Pork Chops and Catfish.

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

HeeHaw -

No, I mean the market that prohibited discrimination based on race, color, creed, sex or national origin - which had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act. THAT the market

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

If you’re talking about “The Boys in the Room”, I didn’t see it, but the hubster did (while he’s not political, he has Tory leanings) and he didn’t think it was biased at all. Actually, he said you could see why it wasn’t as b/w as people would like to think.

As for Ken Lay’s ties with Clinton - sorry, bub, but this is something I know from first-hand experience (not friend-of-a-friend - first. hand.). I worked in DC with someone who had VERY strong ties with “Kenny Boy” - rode in the plane, you might say. The late Ken Lay was a dyed-in-the-wool Republican - the only “ties” he may have had with Clinton were the ones all businesses have with thee WH regardless of who is in power - a certain amount of obeisance, but hardly the same kind of relationship Lay had with the Bush family.

By The Other Jack

February 13, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

USinUK

No, that hasn’t been my experience with conservatives. My experience has been “If there is a pay differential between men and women, let the market decide.

Is it the market or are Conservatives more likely to allow people to prove their worth? Putting anyone in a position where they do not need to perform is simply bad business.

Incompetent women making bad decisions are, unfortunately, very bad for competent women who make good decisions. The same is true for minorities or gays.

People who gain a position because of anything other than competence at that job hurt everyone.

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

Gale -

Does the word “lazybones” mean anything to you??? If you want to know what Obama has sponsored/co-sponsored, go to his senate website. Here’s a few that only took me 30 seconds to find:

“In January 2007, Senator Obama reintroduced the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act to improve the VA’s planning process to avoid budget shortfalls in the future. The bill requires the VA and the Department of Defense to work together and share data so that we know precisely how many troops will be returning home and entering the VA system.”

“Senator Obama introduced an amendment that became law providing food services to wounded veterans receiving physical therapy or rehabilitation services at military hospitals. Previously, service members receiving physical therapy or rehabilitation services in a medical hospital for more than 90 days were required to pay for their meals. “

“Senator Obama sponsored the Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act. The bill would shed light on the almost 16,000 earmarks that were included in spending bills in 2005. Under the bill, all earmarks, including the name of the requestor and a justification for the earmark, would have to be disclosed 72 hours before they could be considered by the full Senate. Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or earmark recipient. And, earmark recipients would have to disclose to an Office of Public Integrity the amount that they have spent on registered lobbyists and the names of those lobbyists. Several of these provisions were included in the ethics and lobbying reform bill that passed the Senate in January 2007.”

“Current audit findings estimate the waste at more than $2 billion. This waste not only defrauds taxpayers; it deprives vulnerable citizens who are struggling to restore their livelihoods in the wake of a national tragedy. To stop these abuses, Senator Obama introduced amendments to the Homeland Security and Defense spending bills to reinforce the requirements for competitive procedures in contracting and to limit the use of unnecessary exceptions by government officials. Senator Obama has continued to aggressively conduct oversight actions to bring FEMA into compliance with these laws.”

Let your fingers do the walking, Gale …

By The Other Jack

February 13, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I think it was “The Smartest Boys In The Room”.

The Bushes was very involved in Enron in the 80s when they were still a growing company, but the film never really dated most of the bad deeds done. In fact, when they were doing their worst deeds, you really needed to just know the dates in order to understand that it was taking place in the 1990s. The California rolling Black-outs were a direct result of Enron people calling power plant operators all over the state and having them shut down power plants in order to drive prices up. This happened during the Clinton Administration.

It was also a direct result of the California Legislature deregulating the power companies out there.

Maybe that is what your husband was talking about. But like I said, you really needed to know quite a bit of information to make the connection. They left no doubt of any connection with the Bush administration.

One thing it does do: it has a small section of the market crash and deteriorating economy in late 2000, BEFORE Bush took office.

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

Is it the market or are Conservatives more likely to allow people to prove their worth?

Sorry, but the military didn’t integrate on its own. Neither has the work force. “Proving one’s worth” is a lovely idea, but reality doesn’t bear it out. Heck, Ruth Bader Ginsberg graduated at the top of her class and couldn’t get a job out of lawschool - unless there was legislation prohibiting discrimination, women today would still be facing the same problem. Even WITH anti-discrimination laws, women still make less money than men for the same work.

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

you need to do me a favor … Mary Mac’s … mac and cheese … cornbread … fried chicken …overcooked green beans. then come back here and tell me all about it. (sigh)

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

The California rolling Black-outs were a direct result of Enron people calling power plant operators all over the state and having them shut down power plants in order to drive prices up. This happened during the Clinton Administration.

You want to know what else happened during the Clinton administration?? My car was broken into … TWICE!! Clinton didn’t have anything to do with that, either.

Pete Wilson was governor of California and pushed for energy dereg (passed by a Democratic legislature, so no one is without sin). Unfortunately, Gray Davis was the one who paid the price for it and lost his office to Ah-node.

*One thing it does do: it has a small section of the market crash and deteriorating economy in late 2000, BEFORE Bush took office. *

Yep - it was the dot-com crash … plus WorldCom … plus Enron … Clinton didn’t have anything to do with any of that, either. Where the market is concerned, Presidents of both persuasions really have very little to do with the economy.

By Gale

February 13, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

ok, that stung. Until I have the time to dig for myself, I will assume there are more than four items on Obama’s official site to account for his long service in the senate. What I find interesting is that most Obama supporters cannot name a single accomplishment. What I see from your list is a good start for a freshman senator.

By Newzwyre

February 13, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

Is it the market or are Conservatives more likely to allow people to prove their worth?

So you think that despite their lack of credentials or experience, it was simple fairness or “market forces” that led to the hiring of John Snow, Mike Leavitt, Gale Norton, Michael Brown, John Pennington, Jim Nicholson, Harriet Miers and (almost) Bernie Kerik?

How about the ideological purge of US attorneys whose reviews said they were “very competent” at their jobs but weren’t considered to be political loyalists? Was that a sample of conservatives simply wanting the best person for the job?

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bushco/cronyism.htm

By Newzwyre

February 13, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

Is it the market or are Conservatives more likely to allow people to prove their worth?

So you think that despite their lack of credentials or experience, it was simple fairness or “market forces” that led to the hiring of John Snow, Mike Leavitt, Gale Norton, Michael Brown, John Pennington, Jim Nicholson, Harriet Miers and (almost) Bernie Kerik?

How about the ideological purge of US attorneys whose reviews said they were “very competent” at their jobs but weren’t considered to be political loyalists? Was that a sample of conservatives simply wanting the best person for the job?

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bushco/cronyism.htm

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/28/attorneys/

By Archie

February 13, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

to conclude - the whole “let the market decide” doesn’t address inequities or even admit that there’s a problem. you may like to dress it up as “merit”, but the fact is, it just enables the continuation of the problem. Those statements are so true. I had to take some action at work because of a certain mentality. * unless there was legislation prohibiting discrimination, women today would still be facing the same problem. That statement is so true and I am not a woman. Does the word “lazybones” mean anything to you??? If you want to know what Obama has sponsored/co-sponsored, go to his senate website. I did say yesterday that people should visit the websites of the candidates on both sides democrat and republican and now USinUk you see why I posted that people don’t logically evaluate their position on issues.

By The Other Jack

February 13, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Sorry, but the military didn’t integrate on its own.

No. But it is now integrated and has proven itself to be one of the most fair and equitable examples of how affirmative action was needed, was used and has now been discarded.

Neither has the work force. “Proving one’s worth” is a lovely idea, but reality doesn’t bear it out. Heck, Ruth Bader Ginsberg graduated at the top of her class and couldn’t get a job out of lawschool - unless there was legislation prohibiting discrimination, women today would still be facing the same problem.

Like I said, laws were needed to level the playing field. The question is: is slanting the playing field in the opposite direction where men and women are not measured by their worth but by the color of their skin, their gender or their sexual orientation the right thing to do?

Even WITH anti-discrimination laws, women still make less money than men for the same work.

That’s true, but my biggest client has a woman at the helm. She is competent and smart. She deserves the position and is a huge asset to any woman who is proving that women can do at least as well as men.

I have worked with the opposite. A woman who makes bad decision after bad decision. A woman who honestly got where she got because of the need to fill a quota.

Who would you say is the person that better promotes the cause of equality in the work place?

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

Gale -

What I see from your list is a good start for a freshman senator.

Happy to help … :-)

By Newzwyre

February 13, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

Gale, to make it easier on you -

Web links to Obama’s legislative accomplishments - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4519993

and praise from Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings —

I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn’t wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.

His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don’t reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.

This isn’t what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama’s bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)

So my little data point is: while Obama has not proposed his Cosmic Plan for World Peace, he has proposed a lot of interesting legislation on important but undercovered topics. I can’t remember another freshman Senator who so routinely pops up when I’m doing research on some non-sexy but important topic, and pops up because he has proposed something genuinely good. Since I think that American politics doesn’t do nearly enough to reward people who take a patient, craftsmanlike attitude towards legislation, caring as much about fixing the parts that no one will notice until they go wrong as about the flashy parts, I wanted to say this.

— http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidianwings/2006/10/barackobama.html

By Monica

February 13, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

USinUK, aahhhh, Mary Mac’s… do you think they have made the shift to no trans fat? I doubt it; their food tastes too good. :) Now I want some fried chicken…

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

Newzy and Archie -

Web links to Obama’s legislative accomplishments

PREACH IT!!! Thanks for this - and glad to know I’m not the only one who is looking at the “steak behind the sizzle”. So to speak. Not that I think Obama is a piece of meat or anything, but you know what I mean.

By The Other Jack

February 13, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Marymacs. Have eaten there many times. There is also a Cuban Sandwich shop on that next corner which is great.

I can’t get out today, But I’ll try to get over there this week.

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

Monica -

Now, don’t get me wrong, the UK has some fantastic food (no! really!! it just has a bad rap), but DANG, if there aren’t times I just want some good fried chicken and crumbly corn bread. oooo … and creamed corn. and peach cobbler. and moon pies. (okay, that last one of more an issue of nostalgia than taste, but still)

By The Other Jack

February 13, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

USinUK

You want to know what else happened during the Clinton administration?? My car was broken into … TWICE!! Clinton didn’t have anything to do with that, either.

The point I was making is that the film makers tried every way possible to connect Bush with the failure, but ignored the fact that the vast amount of crimes happened before Bush was in office.

I have gone round and round with Democrats claiming that Bush inherited a strong economy. You seem to understand that he didn’t.

That was the point I was making.

By The Other Jack

February 13, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

Monica

Thelma’s was another great place, but I think it closed. They were on the first floor of the old Roxy Lofts on Marietta. I had a loft there before the Olympics.

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

TOJ - No. But it is now integrated and has proven itself to be one of the most fair and equitable examples of how affirmative action was needed, was used and has now been discarded.

Um, no. Google “affirmative action military” and see what comes up?? Affirmative action is still used in the military to make sure women and minorities have opportunities to be promoted.

Like I said, laws were needed to level the playing field.

God love ya, TOJ! Do you really think that the playing field is level?? Yes there are a couple of women who are CEOs, but women still face HUGE hurdles moving up the corporate ladder.

Yes, I agree with you that affirmative action does make people look with a jaundiced eye at all women and minorities in the workplace. But, you know what?? THEY GOT THE JOBS - that’s what counts. Without anti-discriminatory laws, they might never have gotten their foot in the door in the first place.

As for the inept people - just like the rude people we talked about a couple of weeks ago, they are a fact of life. Every job in every country has them. Whether you attribute it to the Peter Principle or not, sadly, not everyone is as fab as you and I are - and, companies would rather transfer them around the company than risk a lawsuit by firing them.

By kimberly

February 13, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

The nano-second BO’s trek shifted gears and pulled ahead of HRC, the Repug slime machine and their corporate media enablers sprung into action, and they’re just getting started. For months they’ve been maligning HRC with in every “news”cast, complete with eye-rolls and “tsk tsks…”, while championing BO as a breath of fresh air whose really reaching out and inspiring people.. unity and hope and such. Before the sun even set on the West coast last night, all the cable networks were airing empty headed “analysts” explaining in great detail why BO is “the most liberal left-wing liberal that ever lived EVER.”

Never turn your back on a smiling Repug with his hand extended, or the corporate media enablers. I just hope he can handle the muck with as much toughness and grace as she does, because they can’t WAIT to rattle him good and flash his weak moments all over the airways until we can all see and hear them in our sleep. Watch and see.

By Question

February 13, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this

Weren’t the Enron/World-Com etc fiascos a direct result of Newt’s Contract with America that basically lessened any of that evil government’s involvement/regulation of those industries? After all, no one can fleece everyone better than private industry left to run amook.

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

I have gone round and round with Democrats claiming that Bush inherited a strong economy. You seem to understand that he didn’t.

ahhh … hangonaminnit there, cowboy … don’t conflate the economy with the markets. the markets were in a world of hurt because of the bubble and the big dogs like enron and worldcom. BUT, if you look at November 2000 economic data, the country wasn’t doing too badly: - inflation was 3.4% (slightly high, but okay) - 4.1% yoy growth in retail (consumer spending is roughly 70% of the US economy) - Strong new and existing home sales with reasonable yoy house price increases of around 4-5% - Unemployment was at 3.9% (it’s been over 5% for most of the Bush presidency) - Average hourly wages say 4.2% yoy growth - as you’ll note, it was ABOVE the inflation rate. During most of the Bush administration, average hourly wages have been between 2-3% and, more importantly, have been below the inflation rate between June of 02 to June of 06 - it went back down below the inflation rate in June of 07.

By Archie

February 13, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

As for the inept people - just like the rude people we talked about a couple of weeks ago, they are a fact of life. Every job in every country has them. Preach! some of my coworkers are complaining about ineptness in my department while patting me on the back. They complain about more experienced people being inept and that person is a man and yes they do complain about a woman here,too. Anyway USinUk your point is accurate that ineptness knows no gender or color. Without anti-discriminatory laws, they might never have gotten their foot in the door in the first place. That’s true and I voted against a democrat because he was proven to be discriminatory in the workplace. My relatives got mad about it but I worked for my degree and I had applied for some of the jobs that this guy kept from black folk so hell no I wasn’t going to vote for him. USinUk you sound like a thinking person and so does Tavis Smiley. Some of the readers of this blog understand who Tavis is.

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

btw - sorry that is so hard to read - there needs to be a “bullet” capability - or at least the ability to do single-line returns. if you have questions, I’m happy to clarify.

all data is official gov’t data provided by Bloomberg, if you want to know the source.

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

Archie -

Anyway USinUk your point is accurate that ineptness knows no gender or color.

They should wear a sign - sorta like comedian Bill Engvall’s riff on stupid people (“here’s your sign”). That way we’ll know who they are and can avoid them.

By chuck

February 13, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

That was exactly my point USinUK. The market SHOULD decide. Then those decisions are based on merit rather than on skin color. If I were a business owner, I would want to hire people that had the skills to produce profits for my company. I would also want to make sure that I took care of those employees so that I could keep them. If I had a sizeable Black customer base, I would certainly be more active in terms of looking harder for qualified Black employees. If I were Black and frequented a business that had no Black employees, I would have to make a decision on whether or not I wanted to do business there.

In both cases, the market decision makes more sense than the resentment that comes from employers being pressured to hire or promote someone because of race, and the loss of self esteem that comes from knowing you were hired just because of your race.

By kimberly

February 13, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

USinUK, they DO wear signs here. They [still] have “W” stickers on their cars; that’s how we know!!

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

And, in a perfect world, Chuck, the market would work just that way. but it doesn’t. it’s made up of people - and people are far from perfect. which is why we need anti-discrimination laws.

see my replies to TOJ above.

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

kimberly -

HA!!

By chuck

February 13, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this

USinUK Unemployment rates for the first 4 years of Clinton. Economic situation improved after Republicans took over Congress in 1994 and the rates began to fall. The 8 year average for Clinton an Bush are almost identical.

1993 6.91
1994 6.10
1995 5.59
1996 5.41

ALSO

While Obama has sponsored 129 Bills in the Senate since he took office in 2005, only 9 have even made it out of committee and only 1 has been passed (a resolution condemning Zimbabwe for attacks on peaceful protestors). Not exactly the stuff legends are made of.

By LaughoftheWeek

February 13, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

they DO wear signs here. They [still] have “W” stickers on their cars; that’s how we know

By Newzwyre

February 13, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this

USinUK - nice collection of economic data. Here’s another look at the current situation —-

Totally Spent – Robert Reich

—- Even with more tax breaks for business like accelerated depreciation, companies won’t invest in more factories or equipment when demand is dropping for products and services across the board, as it is now. And temporary fixes like a stimulus package that would give households a one-time cash infusion won’t get consumers back to the malls, because consumers know the assistance is temporary.

[snip]

The underlying problem has been building for decades. America’s median hourly wage is barely higher than it was 35 years ago, adjusted for inflation. The income of a man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago. Most of what’s been earned in America since then has gone to the richest 5 percent.

[snip]

The problem has been masked for years as middle- and lower-income Americans found ways to live beyond their paychecks. But now they have run out of ways.

The first way was to send more women into paid work. Most women streamed into the work force in the 1970s less because new professional opportunities opened up to them than because they had to prop up family incomes. The percentage of American working mothers with school-age children has almost doubled since 1970 — to more than 70 percent. But there’s a limit to how many mothers can maintain paying jobs.

So Americans turned to a second way of spending beyond their hourly wages. They worked more hours. The typical American now works more each year than he or she did three decades ago. Americans became veritable workaholics, putting in 350 more hours a year than the average European, more even than the notoriously industrious Japanese.

But there’s also a limit to how many hours Americans can put into work, so Americans turned to a third way of spending beyond their wages. They began to borrow. With housing prices rising briskly through the 1990s and even faster from 2002 to 2006, they turned their homes into piggy banks by refinancing home mortgages and taking out home-equity loans. But this third strategy also had a built-in limit. With the bursting of the housing bubble, the piggy banks are closing.

The binge seems to be over. We’re finally reaping the whirlwind of widening inequality and ever more concentrated wealth.

Link to more — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13reich.html?ref=opinion

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this

Chuck -

Economic situation improved after Republicans took over Congress in 1994 and the rates began to fall.

That would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. I don’t know if you remember the phrase “it’s the economy, stupid” - but that’s what Clinton ran on in 1992 - and it wasn’t the rally cry because the economy was so peachy at the end of Papa Bush’s admin.

Do you really think businesses weren’t hiring because of a Democratic congress??? yeah, sadly, you probably do. Hop into the WayBack Machine and go back to 1994 … remember a leeeeetle company called Microsoft? and a leeeeeetle company called AOL?? thanks to both of them, a the internet industry was born, creating millions of jobs across the country. The Gingrich Revolution had about as much to do with that as my aunt bertha, no matter how much you wish it so.

The original question, Mr. Reading is Fundamental was what kind of economy did Baby Bush INHERIT - which was not perfect with the market turmoil, but still had sound fundamentals.

By chuck

February 13, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

There are some interesting things that Obama did manage to vote on while he was in the Illinois State Senate:

He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive.

He opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes.

Voted against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang. (2001)

Unsuccessfully co-sponsored ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation.

By chuck

February 13, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre, I have to agree with the post at 12:28.

I have said for years that we cannot continue unbridled consumption and still have a strong economy. Controlled consumption is great, but when the desire to have “stuff” puts your home at risk, you have a problem.

We try as much as we can to operate on a cash only basis in our family. It isn’t always easy to do, especially with gas prices driving the cost of everything up. My children are exact oposites in terms of fiscal responsibility. My son saves most of what he earns and my daughter spends most of what she earns.

That’s one reason why the Bankruptcy reform law was so fundamentally important. For decades we made it simple for people. They charged their cards up to the limit, bought new cars they couldn’t pay for, and houses beyond their means. When it got tough they would just file for bankruptcy and the debt in most cases just disappeared. They would go without credit for a few years, but they could continue to spend because now they had cash to spare. After a few years of “pennance” they would get credit again and continue the vicious cycle.

By chuck

February 13, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

what kind of economy did Baby Bush INHERIT

from Ashland University department of economics, January 2001:

George W. Bush is coming to power at a point when the economy seems to be headed south. Evidence is arriving from many parts of the economy; a few of the signs are slow retail sales at Christmas, a crash in the technology part of the stock market, and slack markets in many capital goods (illustrated by the bankruptcy of LTV, the third largest steel manufacturer).

By USinUK

February 13, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this

That’s one reason why the Bankruptcy reform law was so fundamentally important.

geez louise. is anyone here surprised that Chuck was FOR the bankruptcy bill???

Chuck, not to confuse you with the facts or anything, but more than HALF of all bankruptcies are caused NOT by profligate spending but by catastrophic health care expenses, from which people cannot financially recover. Are there people who abuse the credit system? of course - and they should be penalized.

The problem with the bankruptcy bill was that the amendment that would allow leniency for bankruptcy caused by health care expenses was defeated - as was an amendment that would have allowed leniency for families who have someone serving overseas with the Reserves (yet another example of how much the GOP “supports” the troops).

By chuck

February 13, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

I definitely remember the phrase “It’s the economy stupid”. That was a brilliant POLITICAL slogan that had absolutely nothing to do with the economic conditions at the time. The reality is that the economy had strong GROWTH the last 2 quarters of Bush 1’s term.

By lozen

February 13, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

Chuck, we pulled out of Vietnam in January 1973; it was April 1975 when the South Vietnamese quit and a communist government was installed in the country. Were we directly responsible for that because we pulled out? Some say yes and some say no. Some say we didn’t lose in Vietnam because we pulled out. Some say we did. One thing for sure; we lost the lives of 58,000 American men in Vietnam.

My point was that the dominant argument for the Vietnam War was the “domino” theory: If Vietnam went communist, the rest of the region would fall like a row of dominoes.

You were right about the immediate neighborhood. South Vietnam did fall to the North, and Cambodia became a communist killing field. But, beyond the immediate neighborhood, as critics of the war predicted, communism did not spread. And now Bush holds economic meetings in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City with the commies. So, what did those men die for?

“Just let North Korea threaten to invade the U.S. … Bush will attack Venezuela immediately.”

By kimberly

February 13, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

USinUK, I think what this gentleman is trying to say is that, because HE was able to keep his job and his automatic insurance premium deductions for his family, and because HE actually goes to work every day and his kids are healthy, that a small child born into a poor family (they SAY through no fault of his own, but can we be sure?) who gets sick is NO BETTER THAN the Nordstrom addicts driving Jaguars down at Phipps buying $400 shoes every other week they can’t afford. Further, the health care crisis that causes some people to either do without care or lose everything they ever had as a result of needing it IS NOT REALLY A CRISIS. Why? Because if you had done what you should have done, God would not let this happen to you, and you can just all rot in emergency room heck where you belong…. Lazy heathen liberals.

By chuck

February 13, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this

So USinUK, is it your position that people WHO ARE ABLE TO PAY continue to be allowed to just walk away from their debts by filing Chapter 7?

This is what the Bankruptcy Reform Act did:

1) The Bankruptcy Reform Law of 2005 vastly changes how bankruptcy can be declared by individuals and limits what many can do to eliminate debt. Some of the biggest changes include a rule that requires consumers to get credit counseling before they file a bankruptcy case. After filing, consumers must complete a financial management class designed to help them identify and correct what led to bankruptcy in the first place. Fewer filers will be able to use Chapter 7and will have to “reorganize” instead and pay back debt under Chapter 13.

2)A means test is applied to determine if people can file for Chapter 7. More people will go into repayment plans under Chapter 13 and cannot file under Chapter 7 because their incomes are too high. Debts that used to be wiped clean under Chapter 7 are instead repaid according to a different formula over a 5-year time frame.

So basically, people who BORROWED money from a lender can no longer just walk away from that debt if they are capable of paying some of it back. People who are incapable of managing their finances are required to take a course to teach them how to manage their money so they don’t get into that kind of mess again.How is that unfair?

By Newzwyre

February 13, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

chuck wrote “They charged their cards up to the limit, bought new cars they couldn’t pay for, and houses beyond their means. When it got tough they would just file for bankruptcy and the debt in most cases just disappeared.”

this is true, but these issues are not reflective of many bankruptsy filers. Statistics show that almost half of people going into bankruptsy were victims not of their own excess, but of circumstances. They ended up over-using their credit to make up for sudden illness, hospitalization, accident, or related job loss.

— some 46.2 percent of bankruptcies studied were related to medical illness or injury. Using the more inclusive definition, (that included birth/death of family member, addiction problems, etc) that figure increased to 54.5 percent of bankruptcies.* — http://www.rwjf.org/programareas/resources/grantsreport.jsp?filename=042425.htm&pid=1132

Regardless of the health/bankruptcy connection, I wonder how irresponsible consumers managed to get ahold of these cards? Were the banks and finance companies handing them out like candy on Halloween? Pretty much. These credit card companies didn’t care if the consumer was a good bet, they extended credit to anyone regardless of their ability to pay. Though the consumer failed to follow through on what was essentially a loan, it seems to me that the banks also failed in their obligation to be prudent in extending that credit. Even so, these types of people could have been dealt with simply by refusing them credit in the first place.

Instead of using that common-sense approach, the credit card companies approached the Legislature and cried poverty and pain to them. Congress, in its infinite wisdom, decided that regardless of circumstance, once you got buried in debt, there you should stay in virtual perpetuity —- toiling away to pay credit card fees and interest rates that would, in another time, be considered usurious.

That’s my problem with that so-called Bankruptcy Reform. Sorry for the longwinded post.

By chuck

February 13, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

Lozen…why didn’t it spread? Drum Roll Please: That’s right, Ronald Reagan!!!

My gosh Kimmie. You are such a DRAMA QUEEN. They don’t “lose everything they ever had”. Read my last post and stop being so deliberately obtuse.

By Archie

February 13, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

While I don’t agree with Chuck it sure is nice to see the issues debated. Obama probably,privately, does not support the death penalty but since I am not him I can’t answer for him but many blacks do not support the death penalty and I think it was Illinois where the governor there just flat out decided not to use the death penalty for awhile.

I also agree with 11:54 am post of USinUK.

By kimberly

February 13, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

Actually Chuckie, I have a close friend in the hospital right now fighting cancer, and yes, she has indeed lost everything she’s worked for for 30 years. What little was left she had to sign away in order for the state to even pay for basic treatment which, by the way, doesn’t look like it’s working so well at the moment. But hey, feel free to judge, whydoncha.

By chuck

February 13, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

There is a fundamental difference in the way liberals and conservatives see things. You said:

Even so, these types of people could have been dealt with simply by refusing them credit in the first place.

Had these people been DENIED CREDIT, liberals would be screaming that these mean bankers were discriminating against them. Just another case of the man keeping poor people down.

Conservatives prefer that PEOPLE be responsible for their own actions. We believe that if people borrow money, they should pay it back as they AGREED to. They had the same opportunity to read the credit contract and to determine if they could afford to abide by the terms BEFORE theymade the agreement. The bank TRUSTS them to keep their word.

By kimberly

February 13, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

Why isn’t the CREDIT INDUSTRY responsible for their own bad decisions? Why the government bailout of (and regulations favoring) corporations who, with the visions of greed, extended credit at 22% or more to known bad risks? Why is personal responsibility applicable to individuals but NOT corporations? Oh yeah. Corporations own this country and our government. We do not. That’s what you voted for. That’s what you got.

By chuck

February 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry to hear about that Kimberly. Rather than argue with you, let me ask this: Is there a fund set up at a bank for her? I’d be glad to send a check if so. As you know, I lost my Dad to cancer in February of ‘05 and I know that there is no joy in fighting it.

By Monica

February 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

I can say that our credit card debt came mostly from an unexpected (yet much celebrated) 2nd child and the sickness that kept him in the hospital the first two weeks of his life. We couldn’t afford for me to stay home, but two kids in day care and the increase in natural and gas and gasoline prices almost broke us. I can see how bankruptcies stem from circumstance. However, I do agree with Chuck that those who have charged frivolously should not be granted the same graces as those who charged out of necessity.

Newzwyre provides meaningful, impartial, information that is quite helpful. Who is that masked person anyway? Inquiring minds wanna know. :)

By chuck

February 13, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

BTW Kimmie, I have an uncle in Roswell who is a doctor. I could probably line up some free care through him if your friend would be interested. He’s not an oncologist but he has tons of connections. I also have a good Christian friend in N. Fulton who is a great doctor (ob/gyn) who may be able to help.

By Archie

February 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

Congress, in its infinite wisdom, decided that regardless of circumstance, once you got buried in debt, there you should stay in virtual perpetuity —- toiling away to pay credit card fees and interest rates that would, in another time, be considered usurious. I agree with those statements and Congress should do away with some of these fees. There are some folk that used bankruptcy to be slack but then some people just need a fresh start and banks and credit card companies get a lot of profit off of exorbitant fees or usury habits as someone said earlier.

By chuck

February 13, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

It may shock you to know this Kimmie, but I was TOTALLY AGAINST the savings and loan bailout in the 80’s. AND, these corporations are reaping the rewards of those bad loans. In most chapter 13 bankruptcy filings, lenders only recover from 25-50% of the debt. What other recourse do they have? Afterall you liberals did away with debtors prison (J/K).

The biggest loser in all of this is the normal consumer who suffers from paying higher interest rates and tighter credit.

By chuck

February 13, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this

Hey Monica!

By chuck

February 13, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

Come on Archie. Just because the banks have deep pockets doesn’t give people the right to pick those pockets. People have to learn to live within their means. If they don’t chances are they are going to have to do without some things. For instance, these people who “just needed a fresh start”. How many of them have cable, cell phones, internet service, a NEW car, eat out 3-4 times a month, take vacations, etc? My guess would be that MOST of them have these things which are CERTAINLY NOT NECESSITIES. Why should the bank end up paying for these things to fund this “fresh start”?

The problem is that people don’t want to change their lifestyle JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN NO LONGER AFFORD IT.

By kimberly

February 13, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Chuck. She’s being treated by oncologists at state and American Cancer Society expense, because she lost her job and the income with which she previously paid high individual rates for insurance coverage, which was terminated about the time everything in her body began to hurt. (It’s in the bones now.) She can see the doctors, but literally had to divest herself of everything to receive assistance. She’s not allowed to earn a single penny or own anything of value if she wants to continue treatments. (Thank GOD she has a man who loves her but has not yet married her!!! Bless him, he’s doing the best he can.)

This is not an isolated case, Chuck. Overhauling the health care system is about making it WORK instead of not work; it’s not about funding the laziness of others on your hard-earned dime. It’s not going to be easy or uncontested, but I think in the end, it will be worth it, don’t you?

Let’s take the stereotypes and the “us vs. them” out of it. There’s no reason for the system to be THIS dysfunctional! Few people would CHOOSE to be sick, penniless, and totally dependent on the state. Most would rather get up in their own ramshackle houses and go to work if they could. I know she would.

By lozen

February 13, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

Newswyre, thanks for the info. You are a fount of wisdom. Yes, Kimberly. Corporations can do anything. Corporations can be as irresponsible, even criminal as they want. Cuz they have lotsa dollars ya know to dangle in front of the a—es nose. It is only individuals who must be held accountable for their lack of knowledge about money, their bad financial decisions, their illnesses, their children’s illnesses, losing their jobs, etc. Cuz the folks in Washington get our tax money automatically whether they do anything for us or not. Too bad there isn’t a way for us to make them wait for us to give it to them (like they have to wait for the corps to give it to them); then ‘we the people’ might have some power too!

By Newzwyre

February 13, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

Thank you, Monica, for the compliment. “Newzwyre provides meaningful, impartial, information that is quite helpful.”

chuck wrote “Conservatives prefer that PEOPLE be responsible for their own actions.—-The bank TRUSTS them to keep their word.”

Perhaps Netbanker would be better able to answer this, but doesn’t the financial institution have some sort of fudiciary duty to ensure that the client is trustworthy before taking them at their word?

And tell me this — if the credit card companies expect their clients to “keep their word”, shouldn’t the cardholder also be assured that the lender keeps their word and doesn’t up his fees, change his rate, or adjust his credit limits without some sort of due process and new contract? Even if you have never been late on a payment, never been short on a payment, and never defaulted on your credit card in any way, the card companies can use as an excuse to raise your rate any problems you may have in other areas (a foreclosure, perhaps a repossession, late payment on the phone bill, etc) even though they have nothing to do with the contract you have with them. It’s called Universal Credit Default and, IMO, it’s abused by the credit companies..

By 2D

February 13, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this

Kimberly… Amen sister!

The banks should shoulder the blame for a large portion of the consumer credit disaster we are facing. Those banks, and the individuals holding those loans, should also shoulder the responsibility. If that means banks going under, or poeple losing everything they have, then so be it. We as a society must hold people accountable for their actions.

Newzwyre may be correct in his post that roughly half of the people with extreme credit problems are simply victims of circumstance. However, the basic question is, whose responsibility is it to assist people with those issues?

I do believe that we as a society should help those individuals, however I do not believe that is the responsibility of the government, either local, state or federal, to do so. It is simply my opinion that providing that type of service is neither the intended, nor the most efficient, role of government.

By Archie

February 13, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

Come on Chuck credit card companies are ripping people off with their fees. Heck why be a criminal when you can legally jack people up and you are right!People have to learn to live within their means. I don’t have all those things and you are right about managing money but banks and credit companies do things like charging fees even if the person pays online on the due date. That’s treated like a mail in even though the person has the money in the bank then these credit companies want to charge you 15 dollars so you can pay them and they call it a rush payment. Many people just don’t know how money-grubbing these companies and they pay for it. I do think money management is the responsibility of the consumer but I also think that there is a tremendous amount of manipulation going on and outright gouging and that’s what Congress needs to do something about. On this subject there are two wrongs being committed usury business practices and bad money management.

By 2D

February 13, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

Newswyre… And there has been talk of eliminating Universal Credit Default. Not sure when it will come through, but I do believe it will.

By Jack

February 13, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

What is wrong?!! I get a procedure done, my insurance gets billed $2500.00. my brother gets the same exact procedure done but has no insurance. He is billed $4500.00. Additionally, I pay for prescription “X” here in the US and it costs $350.00. I can go to Canada and get it for $125.00. We need to fix it.

By Monica

February 13, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

2D, Kimberly, lozen, And that’s where the churches have fallen short. Someone at my church once said that it is not the responsibility of the government to feed the poor; rather, the church has shirked its responsibility. Doesn’t feel good to admit it, but he had a point. However, back in the day when the church did step in and help the masses, there were guidelines: “he who does not work does not eat” philosophy.

I’m not discrediting the acts of service that churches do perform for their communities (we have a food pantry for families in need), and I think now that the situation has spiraled out of control. I was just commenting…

By Newzwyre

February 13, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

Just to lighten the atmosphere and an early Valentine’s present to all the feminist ladies here – I had a party not too long ago where a funny thing happened. One of the guests — a 30-something, single straight guy — came out to the kitchen and volunteered to do my dishes. “That way you won’t be stuck with a huge mess after everyone leaves,” he said, filling the sink with hot, soapy water.

As he started scrubbing wine glasses, I glanced over at my guests. Every woman in the room was staring at him with what can only be described as pure, unadulterated lust.

[snip]

Part of a tongue-in-cheek organization called the Cambridge Women’s Pornography Cooperative, Peterson and her colleagues recently published a collection of photographs of fully clothed men cooking, cleaning house and offering up comforting cups of tea. The book, entitled “Porn for Women,” has sold more than 140,000 copies after just 11 months and has already spawned both a calendar and the newly released “Porn for New Moms.” “This is a humorous book, but it does manage to convey some of the things that women really do fantasize about,” says Peterson, spokesperson for the group. “When a man is willing to step up to the plate — and wash it for you — you’re going to think about him in a very different way. It’s not that he’s domesticated. It’s that he recognizes that these things have to get done. That they’re not just automatically going to be done for him. And that’s hot.”

[snip]

Researchers at the American University of Beirut studied 1,652 married couples and found that wives whose husbands were minimally involved in housework were 60 percent more likely to be distressed, three times more likely to be uncomfortable with their husbands, and more than twice as likely to be unhappy.

[The] research conducted by Laurie A. Rudman, a psychologist at Rutgers University, —- recently published in the journal Sex Roles, looked at feminism’s impact on romantic relationships. Among other things, she found that men with feminist partners reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.

“We didn’t ask who was doing the dishes or taking care of the kids,” says Rudman. “We asked broadly about the quality of the relationship and about the agreement of gender roles in the relationship. But we did find that if men were with a feminist woman, they had more sexual satisfaction and their relationship was more stable. Men benefit from having a feminist partner.—-“

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23015839/

By chuck

February 13, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

Archie, that’s why they have CONTRACTS. All of those fees are spelled out in the contract. It specifies what the interest rate is tied to and what they charge for various actions INCLUDING THE INTERNET EXAMPLE YOU MENTIONED. When I changed to a new credit card company I looked not just at the rate they are charging now, but also at the worst case scenario rate.

By chuck

February 13, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

Kimmie, let me know if there’s anything I can do.

Great discussion today. See you guys tomorrow.

By Archie

February 13, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

Good day Chuck. I still think credit card companies rip people off but have a good day and it was a good discussion.

Newswyre, I cook and wash dishes afterwards about 4 times per week and I know I need to do some cleaning tonight. I think there are good many guys that do housework but these studies don’t get the truth because there are plenty of slack women in the housekeeping area. Anyway Newswyre it has been interesting reading your posts.

Lozen, a guy named Tavis Smiley is challenging some of that irrational black pride that you posted about last week. Smiley does not dislike Obama but he’s not brainwashed either just like myself. For those that don’t know Tavis Smiley is black political commentator who has his own show on PBS and has appeared on Geraldo’s shows in the early 90’s.

By Solon

February 13, 2008 6:33 PM | Link to this

Your site is very convenient in navigation and has good design. Thanks! teen f*** [url=https://www.indiana.edu/~folkpub/forum/journal_comments.php?articleid=37] teen f*** [/url]

By olesja

February 14, 2008 4:58 AM | Link to this

http://index1.theente.com >traffic stripe layout device

By kistov

February 14, 2008 7:22 AM | Link to this

http://index1.delserch.com >soft porn

By kistov

February 14, 2008 7:22 AM | Link to this

http://index1.delserch.com >soft porn

By kistov

February 14, 2008 7:22 AM | Link to this

http://index1.delserch.com >soft porn

By USinUK

February 14, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this

Chuck and Archie -

Re Credit card companies making offers to risky credit candidates: the reason there has been an increase in this type of activity is related to the same increase in subprime loans. ABS (Asset Backed Securities) allowed banks/credit card companies to “sell” this risk to investors via a tranched system. The lower the tranche, the greater the risk of default, BUT the greater the yield. By selling this risk to investors, the credit card companies and banks were able to take the risk off their books.

When interest rates were 1%, companies that traditionally invest in fixed income securities (insurance companies, pensions, etc) were looking for return, so took risks with ABS as well as MBS (mortgage backed securities).

so, anyway, that’s why banks were making these kinds of loans - they could make money off the interest while someone else took the risk.

as an aside, the reason you see so many banks/investment companies announcing billion-dollar write-downs is that these types of vehicles are a lot less liquid than they used to be - the market has significantly slowed down their buying.

By Oksana-dg

February 14, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this

http://index9.amstre.com >bath candies http://index19.amstre.com >a company objective http://index1.amstre.com >sacramento area tennis courts http://index14.amstre.com >paris hilton porn http://index16.amstre.com >san disk http://index10.amstre.com >bmw http://index6.amstre.com >psychological equalities between child and adult http://index4.amstre.com >hurriyet http://index20.amstre.com >hamark http://index8.amstre.com >graduation quotes

By USinUK

February 14, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

Re the bankruptcy bill (sorry for the delay - it’s this whole GMT/EST thing)

you asked How is that unfair?

Well.

First of all, you’re right - there is a means test with the new bill. There was a means test PRIOR to the bankruptcy bill where you had to go before a judge who would work with you to determine your budgetary needs and what you could repay.

With the new bill, there is a 2-fold means test - 1) you are subject to a flat formula to determine if you can pay 25% of your unsecured debt (i.e., credit cards) and 2) your income is compared to your state’s median income.

If your income is above the state’s median (in GA, that’s $46K for a couple, $23K for an individual), you will not be allowed to file for Chapter 7 (Ch. 7 liquidates your holdings to pay off your creditors and writes off anything remaining). Now, while $46K may sound like a good deal of money, it’s really only $11.50/hour for each person. So, basically, no one making over 11.50/hour would be allowed to file Chapter 7 and will be forced to go into a repayment scheme.

I think we can all agree $11.50/hour is hardly wealthy.

Next, even if you do make below the state median, the court can STILL require you to file Chapter 13 and require a repayment plan if it thinks you might be abusing the system.

Lastly, under the new law, the court applies living standards derived by the IRS to determine what’s reasonable to pay for food, rent and other expenses, not taking into account your regional realities.

And, again, there are NO allowances for leniency if the bankruptcy filing is for health-care expenses or because a member of the family is in the Reserves serving overseas.

So, no. I don’t think it’s fair.

By chuck

February 14, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this

USinUK, that’s interesting. I wasn’t aware of that. I assumed that they made money off of these higher risk loans or they wouldn’t make them. That’s actually a pretty good system if the default rate isn’t too high. Do you work in that industry?

Lozen, you still didn’t back up your assertion that the Bush family profited from the war in Iraq. I’m also interested to know why you think it’s a good idea to LEAVE IRAQ, when you obviously think we should have finished the job in Viet Nam?

By 2D

February 14, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

Monica… Great quote from the person in your church. I do believe that the private sector, particularly churches, have fallen well short of their mission in recent memory.

However, I believe that there are many reasons for that.

Personally, I believe the main reason is that prior to FDR, the churches were seen as the primary place to provide “charity” services to the less fortunate in society. The New Deal began to change that. As the government took more responsibility for that, the church assumed less responsibility and turned their attention to other arenas. Now, nearly 60% of the Federal Budget goes to “entitlement” programs, or what I like to call “charity” programs. Not exactly what the Federal Government was designed to accomplish.

Also… Not quite sure your point on the guidelines comment. What’s wrong with having some guidelines around receiving aid. The concept is not about preventing a “free lunch”.

Most people that I’ve ever run into would much rather perform some task to earn their way that to simply get a handout. Nearly everyone can contribute something to the betterment of the whole.

The idea is to build confidence, self esteem and a sense of accountability in the individual. Those are the lessons that will eventually make them able to no longer need the charity. You see, that should be the ultimate goal, to no longer need the charity. That is not what the government, particularly the Liberals in our society want.

Continuing to simply give, give, give and not expect or demand anything in return builds a psyche of dependence, and as Jefferson said (paraphrased); dependence begats servitude. That, IMNSHO, is what has happened to many of the poor in this country. Now many of these people don’t know how to care for themselves, because they have never been asked to. They simply look to the government agencies for their sustenance (dependence) and they will continue to vote those people to retain power (servitude).

By USinUK

February 14, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

Do you work in that industry?

does it show?? ;-)

no, I do work in the financial industry, though, focusing primarily on fixed income securities and economic forecasting. which is why I’m such a bugaboo on stats. mix economics with politics and you have my favorite nerd cocktail!!!

I assumed that they made money off of these higher risk loans or they wouldn’t make them.

well, until last year, they did. Think about it - You’re a bank/credit card company. You’ve got people spending money and paying you anywhere between 10% to nearly 40% interest on what they owe you (and the amount they owe you is growing monthly if they’re not paying off the balance). You also have Investor Bob willing to take that risk off your books by buying an ABS security and all you have to pay Investor Bob is 7%-8% coupon payment every 6 months.

which is why banks were raking in record profits for a few years and why investment companies like Goldman were paying HUGE multi-million bonuses for their traders.

and that’s not even wading into the pool called derivatives.

By chuck

February 14, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this

I don’t get it UsinUK. They were making $46,000 per year AND PAYING THEIR BILLS…at least for awhile. Why is it then UNFAIR to make them pay A REDUCED amount AFTER the bankruptcy to cover a PORTION of the DEBT that THEY initiated? It just doesn’t make sense to me to let people charge up these huge debts and then let them off scot-free, for whatever reason.

Let’s say that they charged up their cards because of health problems. Is that the fault of the bank? Is it the bank’s debt? No it isn’t. Why then should the bank or mortgage company pay the debt for a CUSTOMER’s healthcare? They should not have to bear that expense just because they happened to have the misfortune of loaning them money while they were sick.

That’s exactly why conservatives get so upset at laws that confiscate wealth. It is a matter of right and wrong. As much as some poor people seem to hate it (I grew up poor and I am a teacher now so do the math), a democracy is built on the ASSUMPTION that we ALL have the right to KEEP OUR OWN PROPERTY. That is true whether it is my individual property or a corporation, which is the property of LOTS of individuals. I would of course LIKE to be wealthy, but it is prbably not going to happen. That doesn’t give me the right to EXPECT the wealthy to either cover my personal expenses OR to pay MY SHARE of running our government.

By USinUK

February 14, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

I would hardly call Chapter 7 scot-free. You lose your house and any liquid assets you have to pay off your debt.

It just doesn’t make sense to me to let people charge up these huge debts and then let them off scot-free, for whatever reason

hrm. what about cancer? of a baby born prematurely? or a serious accident??

I’m not talking about someone hitting Phipps and living la vida loca. I’m talking about a family suddenly facing tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of dollars of debt because of circumstances beyond their control. Heck, I had a breast cancer scare a couple of years ago - even WITH health insurance, my bills topped $3,000. If I didn’t happen to have insurance, the bills would have been $18,000. And, that was just for tests and a lumpectomy. Thank god it wasn’t worse - but, if it was, I was only making $30,000 at the time - it could have gotten downright terrifying if I had to pay the doctors AND rent AND groceries AND utilities, AND food, etc.

Basically, in the US, most people are only 1 serious car-wreck away from bankruptcy. And not because they’re profligate with their spending.

But, then, that’s why I’m all about nationalized health care - but that’s a different discussion.

Again - let me be perfectly clear about this - I’m not talking letting people off the hook from running up huge debts on their Rich’s, Macy’s, Visa and AmEx bills. I’m talking about people who have to declare bankruptcy because of circumstances beyond their control NOT receiving any leniency in the system - THAT’S what’s unfair to me.

As far as redistribution of wealth, I think you’re overreaching a bit when you try to tie it in with the bankruptcy bill. Two separate issues, entirely.

By chuck

February 14, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

2D, your last post showed a great deal of insight in terms of the plight in which we find ourselves right now as a country. One of the things I really don’t understand is this county’s obsession with taking money away from the wealthy. We have created this irrational sense of entitlement that is spilling over into every area of our national life.

I have grown up FIERCELY INDEPENDENT. I don’t want ANYTHING that belongs to anyone else. I don’t want to OWE anybody anything. I don’t want any favors in my job becuase then they expect you to do favors for them. I don’t want to borrow money from anyone else EXCEPT as a business transaction with a contract and repayment plan.

The point is, I really don’t like what we have become. We are a nation of whiners. We don’t take responsibility. What really angers me is what we have done TO THE POOR AND MANY MINORITIES. As you noted, 60% of the federal budget is tied up in entitlement programs that we NEVER should have gotten into in the first place. The entire purpose of these programs is to keep the poor and minorities from becoming independent. As you pointed out, Jefferson was right, and we now have way too many people DEPENDENT on the government for too many things. This includes healthcare in addition to other programs like welfare and food stamps.

Nobody should go hungry in this great country, but when we put the responsibility for feeding people on the government we end up giving away our freedom and our independence.

By USinUK

February 14, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

2D -

Most people that I’ve ever run into would much rather perform some task to earn their way that to simply get a handout. Nearly everyone can contribute something to the betterment of the whole … … That is not what the government, particularly the Liberals in our society want.

please do yourself a favor and look up the WPA and the New Deal. what you, in one sentence, condemn, you in the following sentence hallow.

here’s a little bit of info: “About 95 percent of WPA employment and expenditures went to public facilities and infrastructure, such as highways, streets, public buildings, airports, utilities, small dams, sewers, parks, city halls, public libraries, and recreational fields. The WPA built 650,000 miles of roads, 78,000 bridges, 125,000 buildings, and 800 miles of airport runways. Seven percent of the budget was allocated to arts projects, presenting 225,000 concerts to audiences totaling 650 million, and producing almost 1,475,000 pieces of art.”

just a few of the WPA projects include the Appalachian Trail, the frescoes at Coit Tower in SF, and the photographs by Ansel Adams and Dorothea Lange.

in other words, people worked for the money they received from the government. again - all part of the New Deal.

By ga_tech_92

February 14, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

I’m beginning to think it’s arrogant for publications or people to use the word “hate” anymore. If I say someone ELSE ‘hates’ someone or something infers that I am a mind reader and truly know the deep meaning of their ‘disagreement’. It seems more and more, that the word “hate” is being used instead of an expression like “not agree with”. I know politicians have groups do survey’s and research to determine catch words that get people’s attention. Apparently “hate” is one of them. I also find it extremely arrogant give people choices like “Hillary, Love her or Hate her?”. This implies that either you are a beautiful person filled with LOVE….or….an evil, despicable person who is HATE filled. Could it possibly be that hate is a word which is abused and has been twisted into something which it is not capable of being? Is it possible that a person could “not agree with” Hillary’s record or platform, instead preferring someone else as a candidate to lead our Country……….or is it only possible that you are HATE filled if you don’t like her? Be careful how you use the word Hate. It seems to me that we are more and more using the word in very short sighted and arrogant ways. I hate, nor love, many things. I’m somewhere between on almost everything. Let’s find the middle ground instead of accusing people so arrogantly of being HATERS.

By chuck

February 14, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

2 questions USinUK:

1) Is it the doctor’s responsibility to pay for YOUR illness or the Bank’s responsibility to cover YOUR debts regardless of the reason?

2)Are people working for those handouts NOW? The WPA was 70+ years ago.

By 2D

February 14, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

USinUK… I think you misunderstood my point, and that is my fault.

You are correct, the New Deal did put people to work. There are several structures, including sports stadiums in my hometown that were constructed as part of the New Deal. In addition to those public works, the New Deal also brought us the TVA, Hoover Dam and the albatross of Social Security, but I digress.

My point about the New Deal is/was that it established the government as the provider of solutions to societal ills. It established the government as the provider of jobs and sustenance to the populous. Over time, that mentality devolved into programs such as “The Great Society”, and further to the current state where we have a culture of wasteful spending and the majority of the Federal Budget goes to “entitlement” programs.

My lament of the New Deal was not with the specific actions, I mean it wasn’t called the GREAT Depression for nothing. My ament of the New Deal was with the shift in mindset. Liberals want to continue down that doomed mindset of the “Nanny State”. After re-reading my original post, I can understand the confusion and I apologize for that.

OMT… Most historians and economists will acknowledge that while the New Deal eased the suffering of people, it did not bring and end to the Great Depression. In fact, there are folks who believe the New Deal actually extended the Great Depression. It was not until the War began and the industrial might of the country cranked into full gear that the Great Depression ended.

By USinUK

February 14, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

(in reverse order)

2) I was responding to 2D’s condemnation of the New Deal - my point was that the thing that he condemned did the very thing that he applauded - making people work for their money. In other words, if you want to condemn Soc Sec or Medicare, fine - but don’t condemn the New Deal as some kind of freebie handout because it wasn’t.

1) I must not be making myself clear - with the new bankruptcy bill, anyone who makes more than $11.50/hour doesn’t even have the option of Chapter 7 (liquidation to pay off their debt). Nor do they have the option of being able to work with a judge to come up with a flexible payment plan. They are forced to stick with a living expense framework drawn up by the IRS (and I feel safe in assuming you’re not their biggest fan) that might not have any bearing on the reality of the state they live in.

THAT’s the kind of leniency I’m talking about.

By olesja

February 14, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

http://index1.delserch.com >soft porn

By olesja

February 14, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

http://index1.delserch.com >soft porn

By olesja

February 14, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

http://index1.delserch.com >soft porn

By 2D

February 14, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

USinUK… Noone likes the IRS, except the families of the people who work for the IRS.

Scale it back and implement the Fair Tax!

By USinUK

February 14, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

2D -

ah - I see what you’re saying, now. thanks for the clarification.

It was not until the War began and the industrial might of the country cranked into full gear that the Great Depression ended

and I agree with you, there - nothing like the “military industrial complex” (even though the expression wasn’t born for another 20 years or so) to help the economy.

However, I just don’t buy the whole “the new deal caused a nanny state” argument (never have - not your fault). The US is far too entrepeneurial - if people relied on the government handouts as much as you say, the US would not have been the global economic powerhouse it was for the last 60 years (although, to be fair, with Europe having to spend money and resources on rebuilding itself after the war, it did give the US an economic advantage).

Are there poor people? yes. Are there people who rely on government handouts - and are they 3rd or 4th generation doing so? yes. however, to hold them up as an example of all that is wrong with a government safety net is inaccurate, I think.

Fact is, there are a lot more “working poor” - the people who hold down 2 or 3 min-wage paying jobs just trying to make ends meet. Sometimes food stamps is what helps them keep their heads above water. Are you saying that they shouldn’t receive help?? Or, they just need a safe place to put their kids during the day so that they can get a job. Are you saying that they should get that helping hand??

I think the problem is that we’re going through a tsunami-size economic overhaul. People (like my dad) used to work for a company for 25-40 years, retire and be able to rely on the pension their company paid them. They worked in good faith. Now, companies are renegging on those promises - heck, even yesterday or the day before, GM was offering employees a 1-time payout if they left the company and released GM of any future obligations. And, let’s not forget the companies who went bankrupt and aren’t honoring their employees’ 401K (Enron, for example)

There needs to be some kind of safety net - if it isn’t there, we’ll ALL get dragged down.

By USinUK

February 14, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

2D

I’m all about the flat tax. No deductions.

heck, I’d be all for a tax form in a language I can understand - if it wasn’t for my accountant, I’d probably be in the klink for declaring something by mistake just because none of it makes any sense!

By chuck

February 14, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

USinUK, You are right that the WPA was not necessarily a freebie, however, it was a wrong-headed approach to solving the problems of the depression. I’m not sure that ANY government program would solve the problems created then and the New Deal certainly didn’t solve them. Just like this current “stimulus” package…another case of the government giving out money it doesn’t have to people who didn’t earn it to solve a problem that doesn’t need to be solved…the New Deal was a case of the government overstepping its bounds.

Laissez-Faire…live it and love it.

By Steve

February 14, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

I think its absolutely disgusting that more women are not supporting Hilary. Between Hilary and Obama it should be a non issue who they vote for…..Hilary. What happened to all the excitement of the first female president? Step up to the plate ladies and support your candidate. Hilary Clinton. Hilary 2008!!!!

By chuck

February 14, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

People (like my dad) used to work for a company for 25-40 years, retire and be able to rely on the pension their company paid them.

We shouldn’t depend on government to provide for retirement any more than we should depend on those companies. The truth of the matter is that we should transition over the next 10-20 years to a totally PRIVATE pension system. That way when a person changes jobs or takes time off for whatever reason, their money goes with them. I hate that the state requires me to participate in the teacher retirement sytem. I think I could do much better if I invested that money for myself. Now if, as an incentive, a company wants to match that, it would be great.

Anytime we put our future into SOMEONE ELSE’S hands, we limit our options and give up control.

By USinUK

February 14, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

Laissez-faire … hey, isn’t that french??? what kind of commie are you??? ;-)

As for the WPA - well, when you’re talking not about 6% or 7% unemployment, but roughly 30-35% of the workforce being without a job (up to 50% in some regions), I can understand why FDR did what he did - and I think that, even today, most presidents would do the same. As the saying goes, “idle hands are the devil’s playthings” - if you want to prevent civil unrest, give the people a job.

By Gandalf, the Grey

February 14, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

A woman’s right to vote is not guaranteed by the Constitution and should be repealed. The very notion that a woman should vote is nonsensical. Woman should stay home a raise their children. Let men make the real world decisions!

By Newzwyre

February 14, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

Speaking of the New Deal and WPA work programs –

JANESVILLE, WIS. – the AP

Sen. Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries.

Obama’s investment would be over 10 years as part of two programs. The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called green-collar jobs; $60 billion would go to a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. He estimated it could generate about 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry.

“This agenda is paid for,” Obama said. He said the money for his spending proposals would come from ending the Iraq war, cutting tax breaks for corporations, taxing carbon pollution and raising taxes on high-income earners.

Link to more - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama14feb14,1,5164929.story

By USinUK

February 14, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

Steve -

please put this sentence in the proper order.

Tea. Not for all the. In China.

I would no more vote for someone because she has ovaries than I would vote for someone because they have a cute butt.

By USinUK

February 14, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

The truth of the matter is that we should transition over the next 10-20 years to a totally PRIVATE pension system

well, we already have IRAs, Roth IRAs, and all kinds of financial planning/retirement packages out there with investment companies - you already CAN do your own retirement thing. and, most companies don’t force you to participate in their 401K plan (I was just saying that, for the people who have participated, a lot of companies are breaking those promises)

however, social security isn’t just for retirement - there are other benefits, as well (death benefit to your survivor and incapacitation benefits).

By 2D

February 14, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

USinUK… My point was that the New Deal was the “fork in the road” that sent our country down the road of the “Nanny State”. It takes time for that to fully develop, but we are headed in that direction; see Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, the current Welfare system. Your idea of a national healthcare system is simply one more mile down that road. I for one would prefer to reverse course not continue down the present one.

I was a big proponent of the flat tax for a long time. In fact, I could absolutely support it because it is still far better than the current system. I simply have become a convert to the Fair Tax. There are a few benefits of the Fair Tax that I like a bit better: no more “Death Tax”, no more corporate tax, more difficult for folks to cheat the gov’t of paying their fair share since EVERYONE buys stuff.

By USinUK

February 14, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

2D -

when it comes to nationalized health care, you’re not going to find a bigger proponent than me. there was a time when health care was affordable to most people and when hospitals weren’t “for profit” (horrible, horrible development).

people just can’t afford health insurance, anymore, and, frankly, it is one if the primary drivers that is causing US companies to be less competitive with their European counterparts. Medicare, for as much as you may hate it, is the most efficient, cost-effective health plan out there - much more cost-effective than any private insurance company.

and, if you read my (and Newzy’s) much-earlier posts, health care expenses is the cause of around half of all bankruptcies with most people being 1 serious car accident away from being bankrupt. national health care just makes sense in the same way that having a national education system makes sense - it a healthy (or educated) population benefits everyone.

By lozen

February 14, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

Oh no Chuck. I did not make myself clear if you thought I was for the military action in Vietnam or the one in Iraq.

US military spending already exceeds that of ALL OTHER COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD COMBINED and the Emperor is asking for another big increase:

How military spending destroys the American economy: http://www.commondreams.org/ archive/2008/ 01/23/6553/

Case study: 4-minute video on how Iraq war spending is hollowing out American society: http://www.afsc. org/cost/

By Archie

February 14, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

USinUK you’re holding things down pretty well,here as you seem to have good knowledge about how things work in the country now and in the past. I think some people just buy into the party line as far as social security goes and I agree with you USinUk you already CAN do your own retirement thing. and, most companies don’t force you to participate in their 401K plan (I was just saying that, for the people who have participated, a lot of companies are breaking those promises) I am in the same situation as Chuck in that I am in a state retirement program.

There needs to be some kind of safety net - if it isn’t there, we’ll ALL get dragged down. I think the social security program has worked and like anything created by man it needs to be improved or fixed over time.

By Newzwyre

February 14, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

USinUK wrote “—people just can’t afford health insurance, anymore”

and that’s not just medical insurance either

Dental care the political “underdog” by Kyung M. Song

[He’s seen] desperate people trying desperate things, because they can’t afford regular trips to the dentist. Lieberman has seen patients scrounge for leftover prescription pain pills or take old antibiotics from their relatives. And he’s seen people take pliers to themselves to try to stop their torment.

More than twice as many Americans lack dental coverage as lack medical coverage. The last time King County checked in 2001, 27 percent of adults, or 382,000 people, did not have dental insurance. And subsidized dental care is particularly scarce for adults. Only one clinic run by Public Health — Seattle & King County provides dental care to all adults. The rest only treat children and those over 60.

Link to more — http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004181477_dental14m.html

By USinUK

February 14, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

Archie -

thank you for the compliment :-)

and now, I’m off for a romantical v-day evening with my hubster!

ya’ll have a good night - play nice in the sandbox

By Archie

February 14, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

Preach USinUK!! I believe the same thing as you do in your 12:12 pm post.

Someone mentioned hate is the wrong word to use to describe disagreement but when you listen or read what some folks are saying it’s so irrational that it’s hatred. Chuck and I disagree and he posts what he believes and I post what I believe but when I say he killed someone yet he’s never been convicted or even went to trial or was never charged with any kind of violence then you can infer I hate Chuck because my opinion is extreme. I read some guy say he wouldn’t vote for Obama because he says Obama has never worked hard a day in his life and he would vote for a republican before voting for Obama. That is the definition of hatred and being irrational,why, because the republican nominee does not have the same ideas as Obama or Clinton and the current president was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. My thing is if you think the other guy is better fine, but it really sounds nutty when people give some of the reasons against a political candidate. People act as if they know these people personally and they don’t and that’s people like me and Tavis Smiley believe in non-emotional voting.

By kistov

February 14, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

http://index1.servitch.com >baby girls name

By kistov

February 14, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

http://index1.servitch.com >baby girls name

By kistov

February 14, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

http://index1.servitch.com >baby girls name

By 2D

February 14, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

USinUK… I apologize, but I’ve got to disagree with you on multiple fronts from your 12:12 post.

Healthcare is not even close to being one of the reasons US companies are not able to compete in the global market place.

• Corporate taxes in the US are the highest in the industrialized world (issue #1).
• Our labor unions and governments have wrought havoc in the free market system by arbitrarily setting wages (issue 2a)
• and not allowing companies the ability to pay/promote based on abilities rather than seniority (issue #2a).

Healthcare wouldn’t even rank. As for whether it is or isn’t affordable, well that is something we can debate. I think the difference is between health coverage and health insurance. These are two very different animals but are often lumped as one and the same.

True insurance programs, are actually very cheap and they are tax deductable. I know many self-employed folks who have high deductiable insurance with health saving accounts and their out of pocket expenses are no more than a few hundred dollars a month, including the HSA, for a family of four.

I think another thing we tend to gloss over is the personal responsibility we all have for our health EXCLUDING the health care industry. People these days do not take care of themselves: they eat too much, they drink too much, they exercise too little, they eat crappy food, they smoke, they pass those habits to their children, well you get the point. Then they wonder why they’re in the hospital for all sorts of issues.

Yes, there are always stories of the perfectly healthy person who gets stricken with “insert the disease”. But do you believe that case represents the majority? Of course not. Government programs should not be designed around the exceptions unless the program is designed to target the exceptions. SCHIP is a perfect example of that type of focus driven solution.

By olesja

February 14, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this

http://index1.servitch.com >baby girls name

By olesja

February 14, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

http://index1.servitch.com >baby girls name

By olesja

February 14, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

http://index1.servitch.com >baby girls name

By Monica

February 14, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

USinUk, by flat tax, do you mean a certain pecentage of income, with no deductions, no returns, and no IRS? That’s my kind of plan!

2D, what I meant by guidelines was that there weren’t really free handouts to people who were capable of working. I had actually thought about why or when churches stopped that process, and I figured it must have been a result of the Depression. Good call. :)

By Archie

February 14, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

“No, I would not,” said former Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H. “I know now there are no weapons of mass destruction.” He said this when asked if he would vote the same way as he did in 2002. “In retrospect, it was premature,” said former Sen. Nighthorse Campbell. “We rushed into there, very frankly, we were kind of pushed in. The problem with being a public official is public opinion jams you around. And public opinion then was we had to do something about all the people being abused and tortured and killed.”

Moreover, Nighthorse Campbell added, “we were leaned on pretty heavily by the administration,” which he said told senators “if you didn’t support the president you weren’t a good soldier…So we got stampeded into doing something, but unfortunately we didn’t have enough international help.”

At least Campbell is trying to be honest.

By Oksana-hs

February 15, 2008 3:11 AM | Link to this

http://index20.putsta.com >crabcakes http://index1.putsta.com >bulletins for baptism http://index7.putsta.com >studebaker museum- south bend http://index10.putsta.com >thsnk you cards http://index12.putsta.com >medical note http://index14.putsta.com >daily local news http://index17.putsta.com >checeron s http://index15.putsta.com >neco engines http://index18.putsta.com >mobil attic moving trailers http://index4.putsta.com >velcrow

By Oksana-hs

February 15, 2008 3:11 AM | Link to this

http://index20.putsta.com >crabcakes http://index1.putsta.com >bulletins for baptism http://index7.putsta.com >studebaker museum- south bend http://index10.putsta.com >thsnk you cards http://index12.putsta.com >medical note http://index14.putsta.com >daily local news http://index17.putsta.com >checeron s http://index15.putsta.com >neco engines http://index18.putsta.com >mobil attic moving trailers http://index4.putsta.com >velcrow

By 2D

February 15, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this

Archie… I haven’t seen those quotes, but if that’s the case, then shame on those Senators for not voting their minds and allowing themselves to be bullied around. Quite frankly, I believe those gentlemen are simply trying to do a CYA for themselves.

Our representatives, senators, President, etc. all need to weigh public opinion and their own convictions when making decisions, but in the end, they should IMNSHO vote their heart. If the people don’t like it, then they get kicked out of office, like what happened to the GOP in 2006.

That the main reason (among others) why I will be voting for John McCain in November. He votes his mind and his heart, even if it doesn’t mesh with the GOP. Shucks, he’s done enough to wrangle many of the Right wing in his own party, and that tells me he doesn’t simply toe the party line. Love him, hate him, or somewhere in between, I think we all need to at the very least respect him.

By lozen

February 15, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

An anthropologist is studying the Hopi people in Arizona. One day he meets an old man, Mr. Begay, who is willing to talk with him about the Hopi ways. Every time the antho arrives at Mr. Begay’s hogan he’s sitting outside singing. After visiting a few times, the anthro turns on his tape recorder and asks, “Mr. Begay, every time I come here you’re singing. Can you tell me what you’re singing about?” The old man says, “Well, I’m singin’ about water. I always sing about water and de rain and de dew. Water is always on our minds because we’re short on water here. We Hopi are always thinkin’ about water and singin’ about it.” When the interview is over and the anthro starts to leave Mr. Begay says, “Now I’ve been listening to the radio because my grandson has it on when he’s over here. And I noticed you the thing you white folks are always singin’ about is love.”

By Chilao

February 15, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

Lozen - good one, off to forward around. One is going to an old friend whose husband died about a year ago, he was northern Mexico native. (indigenous). not quite Hopi, but…LOL

By USinUK

February 15, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

2D -

Can’t really respond to the corporate tax issue today (it’s a “hair on fire” kind of day in the office) - will reply next week, I promise.

Monica - USinUk, by flat tax, do you mean a certain pecentage of income, with no deductions, no returns, and no IRS? That’s my kind of plan!

that’s exactly what I mean - except for the “no IRS” - we’ll still need an administrative body, but otherwise, yes - basic flat XX% of income. no deductions.

By USinUK

February 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

oh … and one more thing … NO MORE FLIPPING TAXING US EX-PATS! (yes, it’s true - despite the fact that I live in another country and have to pay taxes to that country, I still have to file a US return every year … AFAIK, the US is one of only a handful of countries that does that)

By lozen

February 15, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

Howdy Chilao. What’s up with you these days? Come on back to the blog…. Where is Netbanker? Please call home Net!

By GOB

February 15, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

Healthcare is not even close to being one of the reasons US companies are not able to compete in the global market place.

I dont think GM or Ford would agree with you on that one…

By Monica

February 15, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this

USinUk, I love the flat tax idea. To me it is the most equitable system.

lozen, liked your Hopi story.

By Monica

February 15, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

Hi GOB! How is your year? I am ready for spring!

By Jack

February 15, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

Sally decides to take off work one day. Her boss called her how and asked her if she was coming to work. She said no and explained that she had anal claucoma. her boss asked her what that was and she said,” I can’t see my a$$ coming into work today”.

By chuck

February 15, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

Two women were at a bar. One looked at the other and said, “You know, eighty percent of all men think the best way to end a fight is to make love.”

“Well,” said the other woman, “if that was true, that would certainly revolutionize the game of hockey!”

By chuck

February 15, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

A man and his wife were sitting in the living room discussing a “Living Will”

“Just so you know, I never want to live in a vegetative state, dependent on some machine and fluids from a bottle. If that ever happens, just pull the plug.”

His wife got up, unplugged the TV and threw out all the beer.

By chuck

February 15, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

Two brooms were hanging in the closet, and after they got to know each other a bit, decided to get married.

The bride broom looked very beautiful in her white dress. The groom broom was handsome and suave in his tuxedo. The wedding was lovely and attended by all the push brooms and dust mops.

After the wedding, at the wedding dinner, the bride broom leaned over and whispered to the groom broom, “We’re soon going to have a little whisk broom!”

“Impossible!” said the groom broom, indignantly. “We haven’t even swept together yet!!!”

By Chilao

February 15, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

“Impossible!” said the groom broom, indignantly. “We haven’t even swept together yet!!!”

I guess the groom broom was too dense to realize his new bride broom had quite the evening planned for him. (man, don’t try to read that joke real fast, sally sells sea shells by the sea shore, kind of thing).

good one, Jack. LOL

Lozen, been great but they pay me to work here and we have been busy, plus I have gotten sent outta town in there as well.

By Chilao

February 15, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

Desperate Housewife

A nice, calm and respectable lady went into the pharmacy, walked right up to the pharmacist, looked straight into his eyes, and said, “I would like to buy some cyanide.”

The pharmacist asked, ” Why in the world do you need cyanide?”

The lady replied “I need it to poison my husband.”

The pharmacist’s eyes got big and he exclaimed, “Lord have mercy! I can’t give you cyanide to kill your husband! That’s against the law! I’ll lose my license! They’ll throw both of us in jail! All kinds of bad things will happen. Absolutely not! You CANNOT have any cyanide!”

The lady reached into her purse and pulled out a picture of her husband in bed with the pharmacist’s wife.

The pharmacist looked at the picture and replied, “Well now, That’s different. You didn’t tell me you had a prescription.”

By Markus

February 15, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

A man walks into a pharmacy looking nervous. He approaches the lady at the counter and explains he needs assistance with a embarrassing condition. She states calmly that she and her sister are both pharmacists as well as the owners of the practice.

The man, after being reassured, drops his pants to reveal an eight inch &^%&^ and explains that it has been erect for two days and will not go down. He then asks what they can give him for it. After serious some serious deliberation with her sister the lady replies “$200 a day and 10% of the business.”

By Albina-pz

February 15, 2008 9:12 PM | Link to this

http://index14.lilotu.com >we belong together by gavin degraw http://index20.lilotu.com >how to apply tile grout coloring http://index19.lilotu.com >shades of grey http://index4.lilotu.com >carinfo http://index12.lilotu.com >johnny thompson in vegas 2006 http://index16.lilotu.com >cat farm http://index9.lilotu.com >lyrics to mandy by barry manilow http://index2.lilotu.com >i knowsong lyrics http://index18.lilotu.com >tgi fridays employment http://index7.lilotu.com >ue book