Posts with the tag mandate

No Mandated "Insurance", NO!!!

L J Laubenheimer — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:24:57 EDT

“I understand the Committees are moving towards a principle of shared responsibility — making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and asking that employers share in the cost,” Obama wrote.

No, no, no, No, NO!!! The idea of requiring, by law, that we buy "insurance" from the very companies that are the primary cause of our current disaster of a health care system is utterly abhorent!

If Obama signs this shit, he'll be a one term president. This is the kind of excrement that I expect out of Republicans - forcing people into economic servitude to rapacious corporations that field armies of lobbyists!

Oh, gee, he wants a "waiver" if you can't afford to pay the scumbags (read "A ton of humiliating paperwork."), and if you work for a small company that can't afford the toll, too bad, you have to pay it yourself. So much for small business competitiveness.

Seriously, they've tried this "Government Requires Purchase of Overpriced Crap Product" in Massachussetts. It has not worked there at all!

No, no, no, no, no!

No goddamn "mandate" of profits for the blood-sucking health insurance leeches that have helped drive our economy into the ground and drive 62% of all bankruptcies.

Just Say No!

Car Culture has met it’s Match with Obama- No more muscle cars.

Peter from Carrollton, TX — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:29:52 EDT

Car Culture has met it’s Match with Obama- No more muscle cars.

Hemi’s, Mopar’s, Chevy, Ford, Roush, Shelby, Challenger, Mustang, Camaro, Corvette, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Aston martin, Porche, Bentley, Lexus, Acura, and other cars; sorry if I didn’t list them, will soon be dead. Obama has issued a mandate that forces auto manufacturers to create fuel efficient cars. Well most won’t be affected because they are foreign cars but U.S. made vehicles must meet the stringent 35.5 mpg limit on passenger vehicles. What does this mean to you, you ask? You won’t be able to have those Shelby GT500’s or Camaros that pump out 500+ horsepower anymorel. You can’t even get a decent luxury v6 that makes more than 300 horsepower. For example, I owned a 2003 honda civic ex; 5 speed manual. If I slowed down and went speed limit I might get close to 40 mpg. Not to mention it was a coupe. Small, compact, fuel efficient, aerodynamic cars will be our future. Car guys weep along with me as we see super cars slowly go by the wayside. I don’t want a Prius. I don’t want a Insight. Both of which are good cars by the way. But don’t fret, there is still hope. There are sports cars that use fuel cells and diesel hybrid technology out there. Not to mention Tessla has an all electric sports car. What I’m trying to say here is, the old ways have died. The new ways are just arriving. It is still too early to see what the future would be like, but I definitely know there won’t be any more 6.0 liter v8’s coming outta the good ole’ U. S. of A. American Muscle, meet green. Being a big car guy myself, trust me I LOVE CARS, it’s sad to see that is going away. But for the greater good. Just go buy a classic, fix it up, pass it on to your kids, and keep it in the family like it was your family jewels.

Might be something we will drive in the future. World's smallest car.

New Green Auto-makers in the Wake of Obama’s 35 mpg Rating increase for Passenger Vehicles

Peter from Carrollton, TX — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:27:43 EDT

PC Childs, commented some gibberish on my site that almost threw me into a frenzy. OMG did he not read the post? Is he just babbling away at me? Wait, did he almost call me an idiot? Well the point is, everything he said didn’t make any sense at all if you read my entire post. I’m sad that muscle cars will be going away just because I enjoy a nice American made muscle car. Most car guys would agree with me. But this pansy drives a 1986 VW with a 1.6 liter engine and he has the nerve to say I know nothing about cars. He’s the idiot for blasting me about new technology when hes in a 1986 car! Mercedes has a fuel cell sports car, Tessla has an all electric sports car, Honda has three concept fuel cell cars and electric sports cars and thats just some of the auto makers in the hybrid sports car arena. Mercedes has an hybrid suv that drove across Africa!! Never heard about that did you PC Child. There are motorcycle makers in California that are making all electric motorcycles. Even if you didn’t want a sports car or motorcycle, I can hypermile my 3.0 V6 coupe up to 45 mpg. So take your little 1986 1.6 liter engine that gets 50 mpg with old technology, and I’ll get my 2003 3.0 V6 with 45 mpg car and I’ll laugh at you in my luxury car all the way to the gas station. Oh by the way I give props to VW for making a 250 Mpg vehicle. It’s not as new as his spiffy as his 1986 VW but well, decide for yourself. Take a look and comment which car you would like to take.

Here’s some stats about the new VW Extreme 1.0 Liter car. The VW 1-Liter, developed in a wind tunnel, has a very narrow and very flat body configuration that necessitated tandem seating for the two occupants. Measuring in at 4.1 feet wide, 11.4 feet long, and just over 3 feet tall, the car features an amazing drag coefficient of just 0.159…even more wind-cheating than the slippery GM EV1 electric car’s 0.19 Cd. With its 235 mpg fuel economy, it can travel 400 miles on its 1.7 gallon fuel tank…all the while achieving a 75 mph top speed.

PC Child’s 1986 Golf is a POS. You guys comment and vote please. FYI this post was in response to my Car Culture Post Here.

Terrorizing the Terrorists

Don — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:34:58 EDT

How do you deter an enemy who is willing to kill himself in order to kill you? You strike at something more important to him than his own life. Defining that will be easy for me. The next question is can America be as ruthless as our enemies?

The time has come to end the fruitless and unsustainable effort to search and destroy every cave in Afghanistan and bomb every campground in bordering Pakistan. It’s counterproductive anyway.

What will put the fear of America into terrorist masterminds and those who would follow their orders is simple and radical revenge. Masterminds have families: Cousins, brothers and fathers. Eliminate them. All at once, or one at a time, it works just as well. The ones who survive an initial “hunt” will go into hiding. Having some adult male relatives killed and the rest hiding out in caves will demoralize masterminds and their loved ones. You cannot work and support your women like that. You can’t make more baby masterminds that way. You cannot continue the blood line. The women and children will pressure them to stop their plotting and bombing.

People want to leave a familial legacy, and they can’t do that under those circumstances over the long term.

Should America do that? Yes. Do we have the “intestinal fortitude” and sustainable motivation? I don’t think so. But we should, and it shouldn’t take another terrorist attack to get us there.

For the last seven years the CIA has been kidnapping people from other nations and torturing them. Why not just go in there and quietly shoot them to death?

Frankly, by not killing women or children the way those terrorists routinely do, we can even claim the moral high ground.

The Real Abominations Against God and Jesus

Don — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:04:47 EDT

The fact that Americans vote in favoring of paying our farmers to produce LESS milk in order to keep the gallon price of milk HIGHER than a gallon of gasoline while millions of American babies' parents can't afford milk is an abomination against God.People who, in the name of Jesus, vote to DENY medicine and treatment for babies in nations where it is otherwise not available suffering from AIDS because adults delivering help condone use of condoms to staunch the spread of AIDS are committing an abomination against God.People who vote against public sponsored healthcare for babies and children who cannot otherwise obtain it are committing an abomination against God.People who allow others to go hungry, homeless and sick, thus disobeying Jesus AND God himself, find the energy to rail against adults who behind closed doors have sex with other consenting adults are committing an abomination against God. They spend money, cast votes and change constitutions to deny those people rights to get divorced like 50% of the self-righteous people do every day.People who blatantly ignore the commands of Jesus and stated in all the gospels to care for the sick, the hungry and the homeless, and “judge not lest you be judged” while trumpeting an obscure sentence fragment from the Old Testament taken out of context while calling themselves Christians are an abomination against God and Jesus. Theirs is the greatest of blasphemy imaginable.When the mere idea that a person would not CHOOSE to be reviled, persecuted, fired from the military, and in some cases savagely beaten to death -- in other words, be gay -- is met by 'conservative Republicans' with such rabid, savage hostility, then one could reasonably believe that their position and their associated rage is intended merely as a distraction from their own actions which are immoral, inhumane and even criminal (refer to first five paragraphs).

The George W Bush Recession and Depression

Don — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:13:08 EST

We need to give credit where credit is deserved: NAME this economic crisis after the man most responsible for it's creation.

$10 trillion deficit is what we had at the end of the Bush administration. In eight years, Bush more than DOUBLED all the indebtedness America had accrued in more than 200 years.

This is more than a talking point, this is a necessary reminder that should be made every day, so that the notoriously SHORT memories of Americans shall be stimulated on a regular basis.

Bankers CAN be heroes -- No 'vetting' required

Don — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 03:01:53 EST

Senator Dodd went rogue and inserted some crazy stuff into the new law, so the President will need to be creative. Perhaps we are looking for HEROES to run our troubled banks. A lot of wealthy patriots have made great financial sacrifices to serve in the Obama Administration. Like-minded people who don’t want to go through the vetting process and insane pubic humiliation of being outed on every little tax related or other embarrassment can now serve their country without becoming federal employees but while still consenting to be paid wages not all that far above that.

Gregg: Is This Petty Partisan Politics

Don — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:47:23 EST

I see nothing different Obama has said or done since 2004 and today -- perhaps Gregg's understanding of it morphed overnight between the time he was begging for the job and yesterday, when it came time to vote on the stimulus plan. Gregg seems to claim otherwise.

Obama should have known Gregg either hasn't the courage of his convictions or , far more likely, hasn't got any deeply held beliefs other than politics. We demand omniscience! How DARE the President not realize a man like Gregg would say anything to further his own personal ambitions?

There's something wrong with a vetting process that cannot discern that a politically savvy adult who somehow got himself repeatedly elected to the US Senate would claim to have turned his back on Petty Partisan Politics but actually lack the moral fortitude to stand by his decision.

Democrats Lose Senate Majority (circa 2010)

Don — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:38:40 EST

(Can I say 'circa' if it's in the future?)

Democrats won't be controlling the Senate after 2010.

They rushed like lemmings to declare they'd never accept Blago's appointee.

A little time and forethought should have enabled them to reason that in order to create the illusion of innocence Blagojevich would be likely to find someone eminently qualified, of stellar reputation and far removed from the (alleged) illegal activities.

That would only be in his own best interests. And if there is one thing we have learned about Blago, it is that his own best interests are his first and last consideration in decision-making.

Senate Democrats have now pitted themselves against the Chicago Democratic Machine. Despite that Dick Durbin has lost touch with reality and thrown in with them, this is a battle Senate Democrats cannot and will not win. In this, there is no winning, only degrees of losing.

Should he be denied, Burris can run against any Illinois Democrat, including Durbin, and win.

As for that silly mausoleum? All politicians are narcissists. He's just 'concrete' about it.

Remember Republican Senator Ted Stevens who actually looked jurors in the eyes and told them he didn't notice people stuffing hundreds of thousands of dollars into his pockets. I dare say Bill Gates would notice if you stuffed a few hundred thousand dollars into his pockets. Ted Stevens,... now THAT'S a big ego!

It is also necessary to remember that this is the same US Senate that gave a seven-time convicted federal felon -- Ted Stevens -- a two-minute standing ovation, and two hours of praise-filled testimonials. And they are claiming to be observing their PRINCIPLES???

Republican and Democratic Senators must think we are stupid, stupid, stupid.

GOP needs America to fail (Democrats helping them)

Don — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:51:49 EST

Imagine what would happen if the immediate and long-term success, and even viability, of the Republican Party depended on Barack Obama failing to pull America back into PROSPERITY. Oh, wait, we don't have to IMAGINE that because it happens to be the current condition.

While refusing to offer any better ideas, Republicans stand in adamant opposition to everything the President-Elect suggests, even without knowing any details. I have to admit, he's been somewhat vague.

History suggests that America's realization of a sense of success by spring of 2012 will mean the GOP will be broadly out of power for one to two generations.

Every month that another 600,000 Americans lose their jobs is the direct result of Republicans acting on what they see is their own best political interests. While one of their many changing SLOGANS last year was "America First", in truth it is plain that they hold the Republican Party's interests above those of America and our people.

Every day that our children continue to suffer from a declining educational system in which mediocrity is celebrated; every day that more taxpayers lose high wage jobs only to go on welfare food stamps and unemployment; every day that more and more Americans are forced to sign up to work at the country's largest employer WalMart whose own accidentally leaked internally study said 43% of their full-time employees are on welfare and food stamps; every day that we lose what little remains of our manufacturing base so that when we next need to really go to war like in WW2 we won't have car factories to swiftly convert to making fighter jets and tanks so we'll have to order them from CHINA which the most likely enemy in a real war; remember that Republicans see that as MERELY another day closer to the time when they regain power over the White House, Senate and House -- which if not for the horrendous disaster they have created over the last eight years might not be so terrifying.

America stopped keeping up with the demands for maintenance of our infrastructure with the Reagan administration. We were told that things like that "the free market" would take care of things like that, but tell that now to New Orleans and their crumbling levees, or Minnesota with their collapsed interstate bridge, or Kentucky with their billion gallons of toxic sludge that spilled out of a mine containment area.

America's best defense against precisely the current financial system collapse, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, enacted not coincidentally in the wake of the financial collapse of 1929, was REPEALED on the demands of deregulating Republicans -- with help from Bill Clinton in 1999. That law alone prevented financial institutions from becoming "too big to fail". That is, it kept each of the insurance, banking and real estate conglomerates within their own area. They could still become behemoths, but it's when they get into all three of those industries and start making up new ones that are totally unregulated like 'derivatives' that the failure of one company can bring down the American economy, even the world economic system.

The only thing the President-Elect can do to get us out of this disaster is to go back the way we came in, by resurrecting modern-day Glass-Steagall style regulations and stimulating the middle class segment of the system while taking back the giveaway tax cuts from the wealthiest 1% that over the last eight years gave money to people who already had more money than they knew how to spend. They squirreled it away someplace, or bought yachts built in Greece. Republicans love to claim that tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy leads to the creation of small businesses. In reality, it's Steve Jobs and Bill Gates when they had nothing who created small businesses that became leading world companies. Billionaires DON'T start small businesses, they BUY huge corporations then fire 50,000 or 100,000 employees to increase productivity and thus profits for themselves and large bonuses for the three to five top executives of each company. Oh, and they CUT wages of the few employees they do have to keep on.

That doesn't grow anything but unemployment and declining wages. Less taxpayers and more people surviving on public assistance.

If we don't stand up to these self-serving Republicans very few of us will have jobs in 2012, and they will be at WalMart. There won't be any real taxpayers to support the public assistance people need to get back into good paying jobs.

I'll get to the CRAZY DEMOCRATS on another post. I'll give you a hint that after 2012 Democrats will no longer be in control of the Senate.

3 Moves In 3 Weeks -- Way to Relocate

Don — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:26:33 EST

“A President must be able to do more than one thing at a time,” said then-candidate and now President-Elect Barack Obama, a few months ago when McCain was trying to weasel out of the big debate.

Evidently, President-Elect Obama CAN do far more than one thing at a time. He and his family are MOVING three times in three weeks! This, the weekend of 4 January 2009, he moves from his Chicago home to DC’s Hay-Adams Hotel. On the 15th, they move to Blair House, then on the 20th, they move into the White House. Yes he can! For most of us, the dreaded process of a single relocation is more stressful than death and taxes. But Superman is tripling-down on it.

At the same time, the President-Elect Obama is interviewing and hiring a government, from cabinet members, agency administrators, secretaries and ambassadors. He’s working feverishly on the economic crisis, the transition and inauguration, as well as homeland security and two wars. Throw in taxes, healthcare, unemployment, social security, Medicare and the crisis of the Big 3 automakers, plus Iran, Cuba, Russia, China, the Palestinians and Israel, plus all those special interest groups here at home, such as the disabled, veterans, senior citizens and gays, and you’ve got an enormous inbox.

After those daily national security briefings in which the President-Elect Obama is beginning to learn just how badly Bush has screwed things up for us around the world, it’s a wonder the President-Elect Obama can sleep at night. He needs all the rest he can get.

Enjoy your vacation, sir, you need all the recharging your batteries can get.

What Page of The Bible?

Don — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:07:57 EST

There are only two reasonable choices.

To evoke the vision of the world economy rising from the ashes of the torched-earth strategy of the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration, BHO should open the Bible to the gospel account of Jesus’ rising from death. Not only will it give us hope, but it will reinforce our knowledge of BHO’s Christianity, helping put aside the invocation guy.

Times are so serious that BHO should keep the Bible closed and put his hand on the whole thing – we’re gonna need ALL of it right now, and it underscores BHO’s whole ‘inclusiveness’ thing.

Welcoming the Ministry of Hatred and Scapegoating

Don — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:08:01 EST

There are always those who make their fortunes playing to the fears and insecurities of people frustrated with their own lives who need someone to blame, someone to hate, and it's easy for them to agree on certain groups to focus on.

Obama is moving America toward the point where those people will realize that if they don't have a good job, they have too little money, too much debt, their kids are in and out of jail and/or on drugs, or failing in school, it's not the fault of some group of "OTHERS". Not the gays, the jews, the blacks, or even those pesky illegal aliens, to name just a few.

It's time for a new era of Personal Responsibility in which we all take charge of our own lives while working together for all of us to achieve the American dream while making government do what it can to enable us.

Rick Warren is just an updated version of the same old Ministry Of Hatred represented by Falwell and Robertson (and so many others).

The coming of that new era is a direct threat to Rick Warren, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and all the other leaders of the Ministry of Hate. Just like the Republicans did during the long two year campaign, they will go down kicking and screaming all the way.

Crisis Briefings: Lies Like Iraq War Pretenses: Bushiness

Don — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:18:41 EST

The President who told at least a dozen lies to get us to go to war in Iraq has conjured up more than a dozen lies to set up President Obama for failure? The most miserable failure of an excuse for a President is leaving directions for the next President?

If it weren’t so serious, it would be funny! If your memory is longer than that of 99% of Americans you know that’s not a line I made up, and you may even know who did. Details.

I’m just saying, George Bush should be planning out where he’s going to hide to keep from being arrested and delivered to the Hague for trial in the World Court for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

We didn’t let Hitler’s assistants off the hook, and neither can we afford to let Bush’s (the New Hitler’s) people go Scot-free.

We all know that all these recent attempts by Bush to rewrite history are mere hopes that America doesn’t do what’s right. If we intend to restore any sense of moral authority or regain any worldwide respect, we must follow our own laws and those international laws we largely wrote and have been demanding everyone else follow for decades until “W” took office.

If we don’t want our soldiers tortured when they in the future are captured, we must deliver to justice George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, their generals and other high officers who ordered torture and passed on those illegal and immoral orders.

America is a chief signatory to the Geneva Conventions. In fact, before 2001, we liked to claim we largely WROTE it. What good is international law if those who claim to have written it are the worst violators?

America has long had laws against torture of prisoners of war. We cannot allow one power-mad egomaniac (or moron, depending on who is providing the facts, and there are plenty on both sides) to cause us to abandon our Constitution, or it won’t be worth anything, ever.

To put it simply, we cannot defeat terrorism by becoming the worst terrorists on earth. Long before we got to that point, any real President would have caught himself and found a better way. Why? Because Bush’s route could be seen even by people as unworldly as me to be a fool’s plot.

It started with Bush’s WAR-PRAYER-MEETING, right after 9/11. That was disturbing to me THEN, because, as a Christian and an American I wondered if Jesus would say that we should “turn the other cheek”.

What? “Turn the other cheek”. I know. I certainly wasn’t in the mood for that. But that’s what Jesus would have us do – according to the Bible. Those so-called religious Republicans have still never mentioned that, and they would castrate me for mentioning it if they could. (They don’t have the balls for it, so they’ll try to get you to do it, just like the Romans, according to the Bible, were forced to murder Jesus. Just reading it objectively and making no assumptions. NO benefit to me which side you take).

Strange, but when you think about the things that really were surprises, you can’t find any that Bush created that much cohesion to in that short a time. Can you? I can’t.

Almost makes you wonder WHEN Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush KNEW 9/11 was going to happen, doesn’t it? Naaaaaaah. Certainly not. I don’t really know. Do I???

It WAS amazing that five seconds after the first jet crashed into the World Trade Center, Bush’s officials declared they knew it was Osama Bin Laden! Before the first tower collapsed, the Bush administration told us who to blame. I wondered why they didn’t PREVENT it since they obviously knew so much about it in advance.

Worse yet is the fact that for all of 2000, Bush campaigned claiming “America’s military is not ready!” Yet, during all of 2001, he did NOTHING to get our military ready. Why would you TELL our enemies that our military isn’t ready? Then, once in power, why would you fail to GET it ready/ Bush should spend the rest of his days in Guantanamo for that alone.

I always think you can know who caused something to happen by figuring out who BENEFITTED from whatever happened.

But I’ve already gone LONG, so I’ll have to finish the facts later. In the meantime, don’t read into what I’ve typed, anything you imagine I said. You may end up looking foolish by the time I tie it all together.

What To Do About It

Don — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:07:18 EST

Previously, I argued the likely consequences of the collapse of the Detroit automakers. And already my predictions are beginning to bear out in facts. Today, the Wall Street Journal reported, “Toyota will delay production at its new $300 million plant in Mississippi, citing a steep decline in the auto market.” What could we do about preventing it?Rather than pumping cash into them over the long term, what we COULD do is just take over something like 60% of the healthcare burden of only the pre-2007 retirees of the Detroit automakers.What? That would fundamentally lower the per-car cost while requiring them to bear their own burden of current and future labor costs. They will still have to make reasonable pay agreements going forward, but they won’t have to fire tens of thousands of workers who actually are cranking out cars that are of competitive quality. We CAN and should require that they immediately begin moving at an accelerated pace to make their entire fleet of cars meet California’s progressive fuel-economy standards.Why? Because that’s a smaller hit to the national economy than letting those people go on welfare, food stamps and unemployment and disability insurance. It helps keep those people paying taxes based on good wages. If those companies collapse, Medicare and Medicaid WILL be forced to take on 100% of all of those retirees from every decade. The few of us who still have jobs or own businesses will pay for that.Remember, according to THEIR OWN study, 43% of full-time WalMart workers are on food stamps and welfare. 43%. They are the largest employer in America. We cannot afford to doom another class of workers to that, because it’s costing us dearly.I don’t know if “60%” is exactly the right percentage, or if “pre-2007” is exactly the right year, but that can be worked out soon and by more knowledgeable people. What I do believe is that we can find a way to take on a much smaller share of the burden than the 100% we will inherit if those companies go down. What I know is that the rest of us will be better off with those people working and paying taxes alongside the rest of us than not.Rather than stirring up jealousy among people about UAW wages and demanding they take pay cuts, Republican conservatives ought to be working to get the pay other OTHER Americans increased so that more of us will be paying taxes at that higher rate, thus decreasing the burden on each taxpayer.Walmart workers, who continue to work full-time while having to also collect food stamps and welfare, are a major burden to all American Taxpayers. We need more high-wage jobs, not less. All that money spent at Walmart goes on a long trip, making a brief stopover in Bentonville Arkansas before flying directly to China to create more factory jobs – in China. If they have their way, conservative Republicans will have all Americans working seven days a week in 12 hour shifts making 90 cents a month like the Chinese.

How We Save America By Saving American Autoworker Jobs

Don — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:53:57 EST

Previously, I argued why all Americans, of all political persuasions, will suffer from the collapse the Detroit automakers. What can we do about the problem?I am far from being an apologist for the UAW or Detroit. There have to be consequences for this mess. But right now, we face bigger problems than that.American Taxpayers should consider carefully the consequences of letting another huge block of Taxpayers be forced to become dependent on welfare, food stamps and unemployment. It’s a double-whammy heaped upon the rest of us. Not only will they no longer be bearing their fair share by paying taxes and Social Security alongside those of us who still have jobs, but they also will be draining vast amounts of Taxpayer-funded money and other resources. What other resources? It takes more government employees, thus money, to hand out and track all those handouts. Can you guess who gets to pay for that?I am scared to death at the prospect of both taking on the burden of another half-million or so workers who will lose their jobs every month – like last month – but also paying much less in taxes myself due to the fact that I won’t be making nearly as much money once most of my customers are out of work. Come hell or high water, those people need to keep paying federal taxes just like me, and they can only do that if we keep them working.If you look at recently published studies on Appalachia – basically W. Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and northeastern Mississippi – the only place those unemployed people who will be living primarily on government assistance will be spending money is at WalMart* . All that money goes straight to China to create more jobs – in China. (Although it does pass through Bentonville Arkansas on the way.)As a direct consequence, many more jobs will be lost, though probably in northern states among people who tend to vote for Democrats. At least, that must be what Senator Shelby and the other conservative Republicans and southerners who subsidize those Japanese auto-plants down there must be thinking. But there are a lot of Republicans up here too. I voted straight GOP all my life, until November when I had to take an Independent stand. My non-auto-related small business will be killed, as will many others, and lots of individuals. Plus, many of those “plumbers” and others who work for small and large businesses that are not directly linked to Detroit will be financially killed. During the campaign Republicans swore they cared about them more than anything.People like that don’t go out and replace our Lexus or Toyota or other Japanese car or truck with next year’s model no matter where it’s built – even in the south. Moreover, people like that don’t switch parties and start voting with the GOP. People like that, including myself, don’t return to the Republican Party. People like that might not even REMAIN in the GOP. Republicans always campaign about being for plumbers and other workers and small businesses. Once the votes are all counted, the GOP kicks us right in our ‘bleepin’ behinds.From what I have seen, once out of work, those high-dollar hourly workers don’t take lower-paying jobs flipping burgers. Unemployed autoworkers sit at home and live off the Taxpayers, even by resorting to disability payments by making claims, not all of which are legitimate**. Those payments cost money, as do the investigators required to catch some unknown percentage of those making bogus claims. It costs more money to house them in jail, plus they never seem to get caught holding enough money to reimburse the Taxpayers for what they fleeced us out of.The bottom line is that we have to work hard to keep people working – especially those making good wages, thus paying more in taxes than those working at WalMart and McDonalds. We have to CREATE more high-paying jobs like that rather than focus on cutting their pay until they make the 9 cents a month they pay in China. To underline a point I’ve been arguing for quite a while, the Wall Street Journal reported today that “Toyota will delay production at its new $300 million plant in Mississippi, citing a steep decline in the auto market.” *To be fair, the studies show, the Appalachians also spend a great of money on liquor and guns. Those are available at WalMart too, but mostly not made in China. They also tend to spend a lot of time and money in church. These observations are in no way offered as commentary on lifestyles. This is all about where our money goes.**This is a concern based on studies which were not based on large sample groups, so they in no way can be asserted to reflect a majority of the group. Yet, any substantial percentage of this group engaged in this behavior would have a significant effect on an already severely depressed economy. Moreover, autoworkers were only a subset of the skilled workers discussed in the studies in general. No lifestyle judgments are implied.

Keep UAW workers paying taxes, not on welfare

Don — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:17:53 EST

Wall Street Journal: Toyota will delay production at its new $300 million plant in Mississippi, citing a steep decline in the auto market. The company says jobs in the state are "secure."

This is the beginning of proof of what I've been saying all along.

The most important detail not understood by southern voters and conservative Republicans is that they, too, will suffer by causing the collapse of the Detroit auto industry.

It's not only northerners whose non-auto industry jobs will be lost in the fallout. Those millions of former taxpayers on welfare, food stamps and unemployment and those around the country, including even the south, who will be dragged down with them, WILL NOT be buying those Japanese cars and trucks being manufactured in those taxpayer-subsidized southern plants.

People won't have the money, won't be able to obtain credit, and won't have the consumer confidence that enable such major purchases.

So all those high-paid UAW people Republican conservatives want to destroy will be merely the BEGINNING of the calamity.

We cannot afford at this time to have high-wage people lose taxpaying jobs while America’s largest employer, Walmart, according to their own internal report, pays wages so low that 43% of their full-time workers are on welfare and food stamps.

Blagojevich? Emanuel? Is that anything?

Don — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:42:47 EST

Blagojevich? Emanuel? Is that anything?

The FBI tapes may end up proving that Emanuel’s talks with Blagojevich only related that the President-Elect would offer the governor nothing more than “appreciation” for nominating one of then-Senator Obama’s “acceptable” candidates. Unless Emanuel “went rogue”. All stay together, and all hang together -- that's how they play it in the big leagues. Over the weekend, Mr. Emanuel apparently sent out his personal operatives – his ‘emissaries' – to put out his own SPIN on his alleged contacts with governor Rod. That would seem to point out that he’s the “weak link” – the person who screws up, then tries to protect himself at the expense of the team. His refusal to go to work last week was suspicious enough.

Innocent people don’t have to BREAK RANKS with their fellow patriots, shun the office so they don’t have to look into the eyes of their colleagues, or hide from the press, rather than just smile at the cameras and say “the Team will have something to say at the appropriate time”.

In addition to that, I do not understand why – if news reports and his statements are true – Mr. Emanuel would be getting threatened, or by whom. Regardless whether he is honest or dishonest, I don’t understand that at all – it seems illogical. Was he lying when he said that? Was the reporter lying about him having said that? I’d like some information on that.

You may not appreciate my questions, especially regarding the alleged claim of alleged threats, but I am someone who has been paying attention. Also, I have a very long memory, especially of politics.

I was just a kid more or less during the 80’s, but right then I was asking why we were crazy enough to be capitulating to the Japanese automakers. I seemed to be the only one in the 80’s who articulated that it was absurd for American automakers to keep making rounds of layoffs of tens of thousands of American autoworkers and then wonder WHY their sales continued to fall. “Who do they think are buying their cars?”, I asked. “The workers who build the cars are their best customers” I argued, “With their wages, they are the ones best able to afford them.”

More than twenty years ago, I could see that you can’t keep putting tens of thousands of your best customers out of work and then wondering why your sales keep declining. If a mere kid could see that over twenty years ago, why can’t beyond-middle-aged voters understand that now? American voters in general have very short memories.

There’s a reason they used to say “what’s good for GM is good for America!” Those workers made good wages. They paid equally large TAXES. They bought only American cars. They spent money only at American businesses that sold only American-made goods and services. One dollar spent on an American-made car meant eight-teen dollars (give or take a dollar) spent in America, to other Americans who paid TAXES in America. It pumped up the economy and created jobs for many AMERICANS.

Right now, we are at best buying cars made at plants in the south owned by Japanese companies that pay LOW wages, sending ALL the money we spend to Japan. Those low-wage workers spend all their meager income at WalMart. That money goes straight to China, where it creates more jobs – in China. Those workers reportedly make 9 cents a month. Do we want to “catch up” with them?

WORSE, when all those high-paid Detroit autoworkers lose their jobs, they will go right onto welfare, unemployment and food stamps. The rest of us will be paying ALL the taxes to support them.

I am terrified at the prospects of MY income decreasing due to the lack of customers directly and indrirectly linked to the Detroit autoworker economy. I am horrified that I will make LESS money but have to PAY MORE to support the government assistance to those people who should have been able to keep their jobs and PAY TAXES alongside the rest of us.

Rather than CUT the wages of union workers, Republican politicians should be RAISING the wages of the rest of American taxpayers, and NOT putting Americans out of work.

Southerners Don't See They Will Go Down With Us, Eventually

Don — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:59:26 EST

What's the most important detail not understood by southern voters and conservative Republicans?
That they, too, will suffer by causing the collapse of the Detroit auto industry.
It's not only northerners whose non-auto industry jobs will be lost in the fallout. Those millions of former taxpayers on welfare, food stamps and unemployment and those around the country, including even the south, who will be dragged down with them, WILL NOT be buying those Japanese cars and trucks being manufactured in those taxpayer-subsidized southern plants.
People won't have the money, won't be able to obtain credit, and won't have the consumer confidence that enable such major purchases.
So all those high-paid UAW people Republican conservatives want to destroy will be merely the BEGINNING of the calamity.
Moreover, those newly unemployed UAW members will have to head south, where, with their experience and new-found openness to accept lower wages, they will be the first to get hired at those soon to open Japanese plants if and when they do open. Even those openings in the works will be substantially delayed by the ongoing economic crisis.
But when those UAW people get down there and get the chance to vote, they won't forget which party is to blame for what they will be continuing to go through.
They will continue to vote for Democrats. That will increase the trend toward Red states turning into Blue states that start in 2008.
That, along with Republican tactics, will further ensure that the GOP becomes, for two generations, the party of Appalachia, Utah and Texas -- completely insignificant within the current Electoral College system.
Having just left the GOP last month to become an Obamican, or Independent in 8 years, that's a chance I'm willing to take.
Rather than trying to cut the pay of people who tend to vote for Democrats, those Republican politicians ought to be working to increase the pay of the rest of us. That's the only way we will BE ABLE to buy those Japanese cars over the next five years -- including two federal election cycles.

Blackberry Problem Solved -- Seriously

Don — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:03:05 EST

The President-Elect's communications are recorded and published, so he can't chat candidly on his own, but he can still keep in touch.

He has a close friend who is his new personal assistant. He can chat privately with his assistant, who can chat on his own personal Blackberry, which is private. What Obama's friends tell his assistant -- who is their mutual friend -- also is private. Use of such a go-between renders all that back and forth as mere gossiping, which, if not done on the President's phone or computer are entirely private.

The President's personal, in-person talks with friends can no more be public than the particulars of the bedtime stories he reads to his children. If some word of that got around "through the grape vine" through private channels, that's not the Peoples' business. Likewise, if information somehow gets back to him through a friend when that person just happens to be in the presence of the President, that, too, is his personal business.

President Obama can even sign a rule making it illegal for White House staff and also administration officials to profit from revealing what they learned during their work.

Federal Agent Insults All Illinois Citizens

Don — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:33:06 EST

99.9% of Illinoisans are law-abiding citizens. People who work hard and pay taxes should not be labeled corrupt by federal law enforcment officials, as was done in the announcement of the charges against the governor. Since that official has such a low opinion of Illinois and such a disdain for the citizens he should RELOCATE. At the very least, he should apologize and be fired.

Republcan Senator Ted Stevens is a seven-time convicted federal felon. Republican Senator Norm Coleman is a common criminal who merely hasn't been charged yet but has committed the crimes Rod has been charged with conspiring to committ. Are Alaska and Minnesota "corrupt" states? Should all their citizens be tarred because they've sent a few bad apples into elected office?

Admittedly, Alaska nearly re-elected Stevens, so virtually half of them actually ARE corrupt, one could argue.

Madigan's Blagojevich Blunder

Don — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:23:31 EST

Too bad Madigan didn't take a little time to think through her "evil plan" before acting.
She and other legislators could have drafted some legislation to be passed upon the Governor's temporary removal, and reach an agreement with the deputy governor on who would be appointed to the Senate once Rod's out of the way. Those could be acted on by the deputy governor immediately upon taking over, since it's likely that an appeal by Blagojevich would quickly see him back in his office holding things up once again.
If this wasn't just about furthering Madigan's chances of being elected governor, she would have done that and more. But like Rod's actions, Madigan isn't putting Illinois first because she's too busy looking out for herself.
Beyond that, even a layman can see that the Illinois Supreme Court would be as crazy as Blagojevich to jump into this mess this early in the game. It might set a precedent so that in the future any unpopular governor could have his tenure ended by his politic opponents filing a lawsuit, which is all Madigan has done.
He's not physically disabled, and though it appears so there is no scientific evidence that he is psychologically unfit. There is an unprecedented but good argument that under the circumstances he can't function because his most important business is appointing a Senator and the Senate is unlikely to seat his appointee, but she should have gotten affidavits from 51 Senators attesting to that -- 41 if you want to consider a filibuster. Because of the other claims in the complaint, his other actions, especially finance related, might be considered to be furthering a "crime spree". The weakness in the "inability to function" argument is that the fool keeps going to the office, apparently completing at least minor functions of his office.
Bottom line: I want him out of office, but even I can see Madigan didn't take time to plan this out. The court is likely to decline to take up the case. If they do hear it, there is a chance they could find in favor of the governor, which would further add to the perception that Illinois is lax on crooks in office.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

WEBMASTER — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:26:14 EST

The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.

Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.

Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when

individuals and organizations understand that alternative energy technology exists and
when people see the economic benefits of using alternative energy technologies

Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.

Alternative Energy
Source: David Apperson

url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy

How to roll back Bush's last minute law changes

Don — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:49:59 EST

While President Obama won’t be able to simply undo every one of the midnight hour presidential signings President Bush is using to change American laws, there is a way to render them meaningless. I would suggest that Obama can simply “amend” Bush’s rules by signing new rulings that create laws or rules contradictory to those made by the previous administration.

Example: Bush says agencies can decide for themselves when to consider endangered species in their decisions on construction and other matters. Obama then states that after an agency makes it’s determination it must then submit that finding to the same body it used to have to go through for the same review process as before.

As for the sale of lands and oil drilling rights, it may be true that the federal government would have to buy back those contracts. However, what Obama could do is sign an order rescinding the sales. That way, the process is quicker and the owners don’t get to negotiate a higher price than what they paid.

Congress would have to legislate to overrule Bush’s changes, and right now Republicans can filibuster in the Senate. Yet, the same is true for Obama’s rule changes. The incoming Congress of Democrats won’t overrule changes that render meaningless the rules made by Bush, and even future Republican Senates can be filibustered by Democrats – in fact, there are some Republicans who don’t want oil companies to rape the land.

Senator Vitter the whoremonger claims moral high ground?

Don — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:14:19 EST

David Vitter the Republican Senator who confessed to being a regular patron of a whorehouse, is trying to claim he's on the moral highground by taking a stand against the workers. The Republicans have once again campaigned saying they are for working people, only to turn against workers right after the election. Those autoworkers are American taxpayers and it's far better for the country for them to keep working and paying taxes than to be unemployed and on welfare, food stamps and unemployment. Because they tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats (I wonder why) the Republicans are trying to financially kill them -- but this will take the rest of America down along with them. More petty politics. Republicans didn't learn anything from their losses in 2006 and 2008 elections.

Republicans Play Politics While America Burns!

Don — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:52:51 EST

Or was that "Nero fiddles while Rome burns"? Well, whatever.

So much for "Joe, the Guy Who Works for a Living".

As has been the case all my life, as soon as the election is over the Republican party screws the people it promised to work for during the campaign. That's been no surprise to me for a long time now.

What still confounds me is that there are still tens of millions of people possessing the right to vote in American presidential elections who don't have enough working brain cells to understand that. They fall for it every time.

Fortunately, this time there are enough of us -- people who think for ourselves, rather than rely on Fox Noise to tell us what to believe -- that we overruled the zombies.

Even now, the party in power when the government spent $13 trillion more than it took in now claims that the Detroit automakers don't know how to manage money.

Highest unemployment rate since 1982 -- when Ron Reagan was president!

Even as America is showing them out the door, Republican politicians are nutty enough to be 'warning' the President-Elect about what he should and should not do with respect to the economy.

As they lick their wounds after spending $13 trillion dollars more than they took in, they now are stammering on about being for fiscal responsibility.
It would be funny, if it weren't so serious.

McCain says Bush, Rumsfeld committed war crimes

Don — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:10:46 EST

Senators John McCain and Carl Levin -- after the election -- published a finding cited in a Washington Post article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/11/AR2008121101969.html?hpid=topnews

They stated unequivocably that the orders to tortune prisoners of war were issued from the top of the Bush administration, beginning with an order Bush signed in February 2002.

Next year, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their chief assistants should be arrested and turned over to the World Court at The Hague, where they should stand trial for crimes against humanity and violations of the Geneva Convention.

Their actions have made it a certainty that American soldiers captured in future conflicts by enemies WILL be tortured. Unless decisive action is taken by the appropriate authorities, the world will ignore our cries of outrage.

Americans cannot afford failing to repudiate the lawlessness of the Bush administration, which according to Republican Senator John McCain, has "strengthened the hand of our enemies".

As I have always said, we cannot succeed in our fight against terrorism by BECOMING terrorists. George Bush's conduct goes directly against everything Americans stand for -- at least "Real Americans".

By issuing those illegal orders to our soldiers, while writing decrees declaring those orders to be legal, Bush has made himself a criminal of unprecedented notoriety around the world. Only by delivering him to justice in an unprecedented manner can America restore claims of being a land where justice prevails.

The minds of American children have been damaged by the impact of Bush's immorality. How can we teach them that America is ruled by the Constitution and that we abide by the international treaties we sign, while tolerating Bush's blatant violations of the Constitution and the Geneva Convention, of which we are a signatory?

Lastly, every officer who obeyed and passed on those illegal and immoral orders must be court-martialed, as required by the United States Code of Military Justice. We didn't excuse the conduct of Nazi officers who claimed they were "just following orders", and neither can we afford to do so with our own.

Mr. Bush's two terms have been sad days for America. He has destroyed our economy. Let us not allow him to destroy our Constitution, our Justice System, and our military as well.

Even Richard Milhouse Nixon didn't believe he was THIS far above the law.

Blagojevich's state of mind

Don — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:02:25 EST

The President--Elect could open his remarks today by saying, "Look,... how was I supposed to know Blagojevich was crazy? And by "crazy" I don't mean mentally ill. I mean CRAZY. Only a crazy man would do what he is alleged to have done."

Then promise to have more to say about the matter tomorrow and leave the room.

Barack Obama has nothing to explain. The governor called him a "motherf@#$er" who "won't give (the govenor) anything but (his) f@#$ing appreciation", then said "f@#$ (him)".

Before Obama enters the room his aides should pass out a copy of that part of the criminal complaint to put his remarks in perspective.

He has absolutely nothing to explain. The guy who apparently did something said on FBI tape that Obama didn't do anything. Until something different happens, he doesn't need to do anything but remind everyone of that fact.

Just like in the last months of the campaign whe Obama kept saying, "McCain said that 'if we keep talking about the economy, we'll lose',... that's why I keep talking about the economy."

3 things he COULD have said about Blagojevich

Don — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:02:49 EST

Why didn't Barack Obama just say something less 'conventional' when asked about the arrested governor?
I wish he had said: "I want to thank the governor for his kind words... not the ones where he called me an unspeakable name, but the ones where he said I didn't participate in his schemes"
Or: "No one has ever been so happy to have been insulted than I am after hearing the governor's words."
Or: "I've never been so glad to NOT know about something."
When they play the soundbites that's funnier and more dismissive of the entire matter. After reading the quotes in the actual complaint -- yes, I read the entire complaint -- that's really all the President-elect needed to do. There was nothing left for him to confirm or deny.

The Fox Noise political operatives who tell the fascists who have hijacked the Republican party what to believe would not be able to so easily twist any of those quotes the way they have what he actually said. For people who don't think for themselves -- the Faux News watching zombies -- it's not what Obama says, but what the political operatives CLAIM he said that counts. He has to think about their likely talking points before making sound bites.

On the other hand, if he'd followed all my advice, he never would have gotten elected. For example, after those remarks by Rev. Wrong (Wright) I thought it was over. After the election, for the first time I viewed Obama's speech on race, on youtube, because I had to see what on earth he possibly could have said to get himself out of a jam like that. Turns out the truth was all it took.

THE CRISIS IN DETROIT

Don — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:50:00 EST

No car czar named by the same man who appointed those who drove our economy into the New Great Depression. When the first Great Depression occurred, America was not in two wars and was not buried beneath $13 trillion dollars in debt (counting the trillion Bush gave to Wall Street). A "Bush-named car czar is a non-starter".

Those who have run the big car companies into the ground deserve to face consequences -- so, too, do those who ran Wall Street into the ground, including the Bush administration and the Republican party deregulators. Bush and those who helped him rape the American economy are not the ones who should decide what those consequences are -- they are only trying to take the spotlight off their own failures and Mr. Obama needs to do what he did during the campaign -- point out their smokescreen.

The big banks we gave all that money to should be strongly asked by President-Elect Barack Obama to go in and try hard to work out a deal to loan the automakers the money they need, at least for three months until Obama is inaugurated and has time to find a long term solution. Obama should suggest that those bankers "will be sorry" if they don't try very hard to work out reasonable terms. Maybe the free market can ease the transition, especially after we gave Goldman Sachs $10 billion and they turned around and passed out $6.5 billion in "bonuses". Bonuses for what? Going bankrupt. After we gave Citigroup $50 billion then they turned around and fired 75,000 workers right before Christmas.

Mr. Obama should publicly excoriate the Republican senators for playing politics with America's future by refusing to bail out the autoworkers for purely political reasons. Republicans campaigned on the false claim that they were all about helping "Joe the Plumber", but now they are working hard to financially ruin "Joe the autoworker because: 1. they are union workers who tend to vote for Democrats (and now we see why), and 2. southern Republicans believe that if Detroit goes out of business Japanese automakers will build more plants down south.

Republicans are again betraying ALL Americans who work for a living, right after rushing to pump nearly $1 trillion directly into the pockets of the wealthiest 1%. They forced us into giving $12 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% before that. Now they are killing "Joe the guy who MANUFACTURES things, which America does far too little of already.

Further, it would take the better part of a decade before any cars come out of any new southern auto plants. The Japanese will take two years to THINK before deciding to build more plants here or anywhere in this economy (or any economy, that's how they operate). They will take another two years milking tax abatements and other subsidies from American taxpayers by letting southern states "compete" for the plants, one plant at a time. It takes two to three years to BUILD a plant once that's all agreed to. As much as a year to dry run things, making sure the process works by building test cars before pumping out any cars for sale to the public. That's seven to eight years of absolute misery for all Americans while the southern Republicans get their non-union workers.

Mr. Obama should lobby hard for legislation prohibiting ANY tax abatements or other subsidies by any state or local governments for businesses. Why? Those subsidies directly hurt taxpayers and the overall economy by: 1. Paying corporations to move from one town to another, which is of no benefit to the overall economy. If they want to relocate, they should do it with their own money, then they will only do it if it makes sense to their operations. Taxpayers should not be forking out money to shift existing jobs from one American town to another American town. 2. Foreign comanies who decide to build plants in America should not be subsidized. They want to manufacture their products here because it is of financial benefit to them -- they avoid currency exchange costs. Why PAY them for doing something they already NEED to do? Giving them taxpayer money to entice them to build plants in one American town rather than another is of no benefit to the overall American economy, and it directly takes money out of the pockets of American taxpayers who must make up for the losses in government tax revenue. Don't pay foreign companies to do what's already in their best interests -- let them pay their own way.

Tax abatements to corporations are un-American and they harm local, state and national economies. Rather than subsidize individual companies, LOWER taxes for ALL taxpayers, or keep rates where they are -- isn't lowering taxes what those Republicans claim to be for?

KEEP ALL THOSE CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Don — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:48:36 EST

Now is the time for bold and decisive action -- not a rethinking of Obama's priorities. America thought over Obama's priorities for two very long years and now is the time to ACT.

The economy was crashing before and during the election and America elected Mr. Obama, so the bad economy is NO EXCUSE for failing to fulfill Obama's promises. The worst thing Obama can do for the economy is be reluctant to do everything he said he'd do -- he must do it all, and be quick about it.

Work to do everything Mr. Obama pledged to do right away -- in the first 60 days of his term. Why? America somehow elected Barack Obama AFTER two years of Republicans and rival Democrats arguing that we shouldn't let him do what he said he'd do. Obama won, by a landslide of electoral votes -- he has both a mandate and an obligation to carry through on his promises. He didn't get elected on some Nixonian "secret plan". American took two long years coming to terms with Obama's proposals, and we bought into it. I didn't really like some of Mr. Obama's promises, but after a lifetime of voting Republican I voted for Obama -- and all his policies.

One good example is cutting taxes for 95% percent of working Americans AND repealing the Republican tax giveaway to the wealthiest 1% -- those who don't work at all. Republicans will argue that "raising taxes during a recession is the worst thing we can do." Then, when Obama turns things around and gets the economy going again, Republicans will argue that "raising taxes during a soaring economy is the worst thing we can do." It's the same tired old Republican disingenuous argument that America finally rejected in November 2008. Should Mr. Obama fail to immediately strike while the iron is HOT -- while he has this resounding mandate that's fresh in the minds of all Americans -- Obama will lose this opportunity forever.

This is the only moment ever where Barack Obama can do the things he promised to do, and he probably won't be reelected if he doesn't manage to get the job done. Right now, we will have two or three years for things to shake out and level off before the next election cycle. This is the time to take those very bold steps, before Congression Democrats lose what little resolve they have.

Obama will probably have to publicly tell Democrats that they will either vote like Democrats or else when they need money for reelection campaigns they need not line up at the Obama money trough. If they want to show the voters how "independent" they are, they way congresspeople like Marcy Kaptur did right after Clinton took office, they should expect that some NEW candidate will be receiving money from me and others who donated money to the Obama phenomena when it comes time for them to run for reelection.

We need to pick out five or six week Republican senators and fund a recall drive against them. If they have to essentially run for reelection in the middle of their term they and others won't be so quick to do what they always do -- vote against America as represented by a Democratic President merely for the sake of petty politics.

Economy and the opposition

Don — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:47:03 EST

President Obama should not accept ANY advice on the economy from Mr. Bush and the Republicans whom America has convicted in November of destroying the economy by creating the current crisis.

That Republicans are "warning" Obama on their way out the door as to what he can or cannot do is LAUGHABLE, and Obama should publicly castigate them on that issue. They are seeking to rerun the election they lost, and if they want to continue to play politics Obama must call them on that every day in press conferences. Obama WON the election and if Republicans want to continue arguing that they have any authority on economic matters then that is precisely the fight Obama should take them up on. He won that fight and it's the perfect battle to keep in the forefront of American politics during the transition and pretty much his whole first term -- especially while he's using his mandate to keep all those promises he made.

Republicans spent two years losing that war and if they want to spend eight more years losing then they only rational thing for Obama to do is to let them. Help them.

Israel 'occupies' no Arab territory

Natalia from Acampo, CA — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:10:40 EST

Israel 'occupies' no Arab territory
Nov 18, 2008 19:32 Updated Nov 19, 2008 10:03

Israel 'occupies' no Arab territories

By LOUIS RENE BERES

In urgent matters of national survival and geopolitics, words matter. The still generally unchallenged language referring provocatively to an Israeli "Occupation" always overlooks the pertinent and incontestable history of the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) and Gaza.

A topographical map of Israel, delineating the 1967 borders. Photo: Courtesy Perhaps the most evident omission concerns the unwitting manner in which these "Territories" fell into Israel's hands in the first place.

It is simply and widely disregarded that "occupation" followed the multi-state Arab aggression of 1967 - one never disguised by Egypt, Syria or Jordan. A sovereign state of Palestine did not exist before 1967 or 1948. Nor was a state of Palestine ever promised by UN Security Council Resolution 242. Contrary to popular understanding, a state of Palestine has never existed. Never. Even as a nonstate legal entity, "Palestine" ceased to exist in 1948, when Great Britain relinquished its League of Nations mandate. During the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence (a war of survival fought because the entire Arab world had rejected the authoritative United Nations resolution creating a Jewish state), the West Bank and Gaza came under the illegal control of Jordan and Egypt respectively. These Arab conquests did not put an end to an already-existing state or to an ongoing trust territory.

What these aggressions did accomplish was the effective prevention, sui generis, of a state of Palestine. The original hopes for Palestine were dashed, therefore, not by the new Jewish state or by its supporters, but by the Arab states, especially Jordan and Egypt. LET US return to an earlier history. From the Biblical Period (ca. 1350 BCE to 586 BCE) to the British Mandate (1918 - 1948), the land named by the Romans after the ancient Philistines was controlled only by non-Palestinian elements. Significantly, however, a continuous chain of Jewish possession of the land was legally recognized after World War I, at the San Remo Peace Conference of April 1920.

There, a binding treaty was signed in which Great Britain was given mandatory authority over "Palestine" (the area had been ruled by the Ottoman Turks since 1516) to prepare it to become the "national home for the Jewish People." Palestine, according to the Treaty, comprised territories encompassing what are now the states of Jordan and Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza. Present-day Israel comprises only 22 percent of Palestine as defined and ratified at the San Remo Peace Conference. In 1922, Great Britain unilaterally and without any lawful authority split off 78 percent of the lands promised to the Jews - all of Palestine east of the Jordan River - and gave it to Abdullah, the non-Palestinian son of the Sharif of Mecca. Eastern Palestine now took the name Transjordan, which it retained until April 1949, when it was renamed as Jordan. From the moment of its creation, Transjordan was closed to all Jewish migration and settlement, a clear betrayal of the British promise in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and a patent contravention of its Mandatory obligations under international law.

On July 20, 1951, a Palestinian Arab assassinated King Abdullah for the latter's hostility to Palestinian aspirations and concerns. Regarding these aspirations, Jordan's "moderate" King Hussein - 19 years later, during September 1970 - brutally murdered thousands of defenseless Palestinians under his jurisdiction. IN 1947, several years prior to Abdullah's killing, the newly-formed United Nations, rather than designate the entire land west of the Jordan River as the long-promised Jewish national homeland, enacted a second partition. Curiously, considering that this second fission again gave complete advantage to Arab interests, Jewish leaders accepted the painful judgment. The Arab states did not. On May 15, 1948, exactly 24 hours after the State of Israel came into existence, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, declared to a tiny new country founded upon the ashes of the Holocaust: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre." This unambiguous declaration has been at the very heart of all subsequent Arab orientations toward Israel, including those of "moderate" Fatah. Even by the strict legal standards of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Arab actions and attitudes toward the microscopic Jewish state in their midst has remained patently genocidal. For some reason, this persistence has repeatedly been made to appear benign.

IN 1967, almost 20 years after Israel's entry into the community of nations, the Jewish state, as a result of its unexpected military victory over Arab aggressor states, gained unintended control over the West Bank and Gaza. Although the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war is codified in the UN Charter, there existed no authoritative sovereign to whom the Territories could be "returned." Israel could hardly have been expected to transfer them back to Jordan and Egypt, which had exercised unauthorized and terribly cruel control since the Arab-initiated war of "extermination" in 1948-49. Moreover, the idea of Palestinian "self-determination" had only just begun to emerge after the Six Day War, and - significantly - had not even been included in UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was adopted on November 22, 1967. For their part, the Arab states convened a summit in Khartoum in August 1967, concluding: "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it...."

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed three years earlier, in 1964, before there were any "Israeli Occupied Territories." Exactly what was it, therefore, that the PLO sought to "liberate" between 1964 and 1967? This question should now be raised in connection with the US-sponsored "Road Map To Peace in the Middle East," a twisted cartography leading to "Palestine."

THIS HAS been a very brief account of essential historic reasons why the so-called "Palestinian Territories" are not occupied by Israel. Several other equally valid reasons stem from Israel's inherent legal right to security and self-defense. International law is not a suicide pact. Because a Palestinian state would severely threaten the very existence of Israel - a fact that remains altogether unhidden in Arab media and governments - the Jewish State is under no binding obligation to end a falsely alleged "Occupation."

No state can ever be required to accept complicity in its own dismemberment and annihilation. Both Israel and the United States will soon have new leadership. Neither Jerusalem nor Washington should be deceived by the so-called "Road Map To Peace in the Middle East," a twisted bit of highway that makes entirely inaccurate claims about "Palestinian Territories" and "Israeli Occupation."

For substantially documented reasons of history and national security, it is imperative that a twenty-third Arab state never be carved out of the still-living body of Israel. A topographical map of Israel, delineating the 1967 borders. Photo: Courtesy If anyone should still have doubts about Palestinian intentions, they need look only to former Prime Minister Sharon's "disengagement" from Gaza, an area that is now used by Hamas to stage rocket attacks upon Israeli noncombatants, and by al-Qaeda to mount future terrorist operations against American cities. The writer, a professor of International Law at Purdue University, is the author of many books and articles dealing with military affairs and international law.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404769705&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull T

It's how the political office is used that's really important

Don — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:22:24 EST

The Office of Political Affairs is like any other tool -- it's value or detriment depends on whose hands control it. Reagan and Bush used the office with bad intentions, using heinous tactics, and to literally evil ends.
Now the Office of Political Affairs will be used properly, for the benefit of the American people in the Obama Administration. We have seen in Obama a man who behaves differently from other politicians. He doesn't operate out of the small-minded, abusive motivations of Bush, Rove, Reagan and Rollins.
We mustn't let our memories of the past abuses of the Office of Political Affairs by the Republicans color our perceptions of the future uses of the office.

Way to get beyond the "Clinton Problem"

Don — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:02:31 EST

The Clintons are not in talks with Obama's team because the Clintons are not team players. They have, from the beginning, made every effort to steamroll their way into the position of Secretary of State through leaks of false information to the press that supports her goal while undermining Obama.
The President-Elect needs to bite the proverbial bullet and flat out say that ALL "candidates" for the position must submit to the same vetting process and that the process evidently is too rigorous for the Clintons and that the country's need to get the process completed quickly means he must name someone else immediately.
With the Clintons causing this much trouble now, Obama must realize that should he name her, he will have absolutely NO control over anything related to foreign policy, plus she WILL leak defense and homeland security information to advance their interests.
It's time to wrap this thing up and call it the mistake it has been. Every President makes some mistakes, and life goes on if they don't let them grow and fester.

Mandate For Change

Don — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:42:10 EST

In the context of the current transition process, I am advocating for a more forceful attitude from Barack Obama on pushing through his agenda. Our agenda.

How should he do it? What will stand in his way? What can WE do about it?

I examine the real reasons we arrived at this point and what it means.

Changing the ACORN Narrative

Craig Buckser — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:56:09 EDT

After a week of right-wing hysterics over ACORN's voter-registration drive, including John McCain's claim at the final debate that voter fraud by ACORN might undermine that fabric of democracy, I was happy to see the Obama Campaign push back on this matter. The voter-fraud allegations are false; nevertheless, they are the subject of an inappropriate FBI investigation.

I am not concerned that the ACORN investigation will lead to voter suppression in this election. I am skeptical of the notion that a voter who submitted his registration form to an ACORN employee would be deterred from voting because the FBI is investigating ACORN.

Nevertheless, I am deeply troubled by the GOP's efforts to use the voter-fraud myth to undermine the legitimacy of Barack's mandate. That's why it was important for Obama Campaign elections lawyer Bob Bauer to assert in a conference call that the McCain Campaign was seeking to sow doubt in the electoral process.

Furthermore, by linking these voter-fraud accusations to the false allegations that culminated in the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, the Obama Campaign has taken the offensive on this issue while demonstrating that the emperorhas no clothes. The request to have the matter referred to Special Prosecutor Nora Dannehy has created a deterrent to furthering the investigation prior to the election. It also reminds the American people that this nation needs a clear break from the current administration.

We Can't Let Up

Craig Buckser — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:31:01 EDT

After Barack's excellent performance in the second debate, I got concerned that his supporters might become complacent. Over the last several days, we have heard similar concerns from Barack and his advisers.

Support in the polls won't translate into victory unless those supporters cast ballots. With Barack relying in large part on an excellent turnout, getting out the vote is crucial. We must continue to knock on doors and make phone calls.

Fundraising is also essential. Barack is outadvertising John McCain by a 4-to-1 margin. Advertising on XBox games, having a dedicated Dish Network channel, buying 30-minute slots on the major networks, and running boatloads of television and radio spots doesn't come cheaply. The Obama Campaign needs its coffers to be replenished.

The Obama Campaign didn't open campaign offices in Montana, North Dakota, and North Carolina to win the election by a few electoral votes. The goal is a landslide that brings a mandate. 370 electoral votes, which some people thought was my idiosyncratic pipe dream several weeks ago, are within reach. That's why we must continue to sprint over the next two and a half weeks.

Why a Mandate is Necessary

Bill from Mahwah, NJ — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:24:06 EDT

I think everyone who cares about this country understands that some significant changes and sacrifices are going to be necessary to correct the issues we face. With that thought in mind, it is not sufficient for the next president to merely “win”. In order to get things done it will be important that a vast majority of the population be behind the leadership and that the executive and congressional branches are aligned. Quite frankly, like many “independents” I would normally prefer that there be checks and balances between the various branches of government but just as the Republicans have chosen to nationalize the banking system I feel now is not the time to have leaders second guessing one another. I just hope everyone remembers why they were elected.

For this reason, supporters of Barack Obama cannot let up in the final days and must continue to help the undecided understand why they need to support him.

Nuclear Vs Plasma Converters

Peter Blackman — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:25:01 EDT

First they both produce power. The difference is nuclear creates nuclear radioactive waste. Nuclear waste is not a problem until it is being dumped in your back yard. John likes nuclear because in Arizona we have 3 nuclear power plants. The only thing he did not tell you is that they are reaching their maturity and they are off line more than they are on line and he knows that some of those nuclear reactors would end up out at Palo Verde and create lots of jobs in Arizona.

Plasma Converters get rid of garbage. With this technology the only thing you need to recycle is the paper. Go to http://renewableenergy101.wordpress.com for the full explanation of a Plasma Converter. First the fuel is free. The benefits are numerous and there is zero emissions. See the heat produced in these unts is the same heat as on the sun and so everything that is introduced to the plasma becomes molecularly dissociated. The results is heat and lots of it, hydrogen, some process gas, metal slag, a stone like material and no emmissions.

I do not agree at all with either candidate. Nuclear is not the answer...Not at all. Even if you reprocess fuel there is still all the equipment that came in contact with the radioactivty that has a half life of 1000's of years.

Maintaining the equipment is an absolute nightmare.

I participated in a study with handling waste at the Hanniffer GE Richland, WA project and the amount of people required to fix anything is ridiculous. It is because any one person can only be exposed to so many rads for a given time and so it is cheaper to throw away than it is to fix.

The Challenge is the status quo and new designs cost money. If you replicate old designs you can make more money building new power plants. Then there is the politics of the existing vs the new. People resist change especially when they are getting near the end of their careers. I saw this with my Dad when he worked for what use to be Combustion Engineering. They were just bringing in computers when he was 2 years from retirement and he did not want anything to do with the new technology.

With Plasma Converters you have to deal with the egos and status quos of the existing power companies who usually know nothing about waste management. And waste management companies that know nothing about power.

Places like Hawaii, Japan, big cities have a garbage issue and they are usually more open to change because it solves a major problem.

Conclusion: This and many more changes will not happen unless governent mandates the change and provides money and incentives to make the change. Someone needs to lead and be bold.

No Time for Complacency

Craig Buckser — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:56:30 EDT

Barack's scintillating performance in tonight's debate, I am tempted to dance in the end zone. But, that would be a bad idea.

Although Barack has taken a commanding lead in the polls, we shouldn't stop making phone calls, knocking on doors, and contributing to the campaign. Merely winning the election is not enough. The goal should be to win a dual mandate.

The first mandate is for Barack to pursue his agenda. The second mandate is a repudiation of early 21st Century Republicanism. The dual mandate would be a crucial step toward fundamentally changing the way in which this nation is governed.

After all, winning an election for the sake of winning doesn't do much good for the American people. At a time in which we face a financial crisis, a terrorist threat, and two wars, this nation needs Barack to be able to govern effectively. A landslide would go a long way toward that goal.

HOW TO LOSE THE GAME "WRIGHT"

Daniel from Scarsdale, NY — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:37:10 EDT

HOW TO LOSE THE GAME

Here is one irrefutable law of nature we all have learned from our own experience.Every failure you and I have ever had has been based on us being clearer on what we didn't want to happen than we were on what we were trying to achieve. Think about your own life and you will see it is true. Every time you were clearer on what you were avoiding, you came up on the losing end.

Now think also about how this campaign started and where it is now and you will see how clearly it has lost its way. Today it is all about avoiding losing its lead. Back then, it was about Barack uniting people in a coalition of different stripes. It was about bold ideas of cooperation. It was about putting a new face on our international position and re establishing (or some might establishing) our international leadership.

Now, it is about "is he tough enough to fight back?" and "is he going to throw Wright under a bus?" and "does he defend is elitism or apologize for his remarks?". It is not about what Barack is STANDING for anymore, it is about what or who Barack is in COMPARISON to someone else or his REACTION to others' agendas (candidates, media, wright) and so on.

The real reason the Wright thing is even coming back and taking hold is because Barack is not leading the conversation anymore. Barack has been pretty silent, really, for about a month now, trying to "play it safe" and win.

He did not knock out Hillary in OHIO and TEXAS because he was spending useliess time pandering against NAFTA and all that crap instead of talking about what he was for and what he was actually going to do. During all this time since, there is no talk about Climate Change, or infrastructure investment, what the agenda of the first 100 days would be. It was about how he was "better" than Hillary (which becomes about him not being as bad as her which is her still defining it)

Pennsylvania was the same. Instead of reinforcing his very powerful and insightful comments about how people are distracted by ineffectual Washington and propagandized to vote on social issues, he laid low on the elitist tag. (Did anyone see what Jon Steward said about that tag? Tew funny). I mean, Obama elitist? He should have been ANGRY and POWERFUL in talking about what he stands for and what he meant ! That was some of the best stuff ever to come out of his mouth. But he didn't because he was playing it safe trying to "ride it out", get rid of Hillary and then face it up in the campaign. This is all now about what he is AVOIDING and not what he is going for. That is a true definition of a loser.

Campaigns are all about the "conversation" people. After all, most of us dont and won't ever meet the future president. He lives in video and speeches and what we (pundits, watchers and voters) SAY about him/her. He "lives" for us in conversation. Our conversation today is about what Barack is NOT. He is NOT Hillary. He is NOT like the other politicians. He is NOT like Wright and so on and so on.

WINNING IS NOT WINNING WITHOUT A MANDATE

We cannot win a thing this way. Even if Barack becomes president, he won't have a MANDATE this way and that is what he needs. He needs to go out and CONVERT EVERY REPUBLICAN to vote for him, every Democrat, and every Independant and every US citizen by making it clear that it has to work for all of us, this country. Moreover, he needs to go into Botswana and Berlin, as president of the United States, and show that the US understands that it has to work for all of humanity.

Global Warming alone, not to mention a total mindset change in military defense, global economic prosperity and social equality is going to require finding COMMON GROUND. That is what we were talking about in the beginning, common ground. That is what people responded to Senator. What you need to defend is not yourself, but your agenda.

Throw off the risk aversion. Pretend you don't care about winning unless you win what you are after, TRUE CHANGE, not personality change. If you give the "conversation" something else to talk about, you can set the agenda, you can inspire and motivate people again, and unite this country. Forget about "winning" by attrition. It ain't going to happen. If you keep playing that game, you have already lost even if you win.

Senator, get back to playing the real game.

Why 1993 health care reform failed

Taube — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:56:34 EST

In the Austin, TX debate, Obama inserted the point raised by David Brooks in his Feb. 5 column “The Cooper Concerns” about HRC’s absolutist opposition to Jim Cooper’s (D, TN) centrist health care plan in 1993 which did not include a mandate. Brooks’ column was the most emailed NYT article that week.

I was stunned to read that HRC’s failure in 1993 may have been due to her inability to work with a Democratic congress or refusal to listen to alternative points of view! And she wants to repeat history? Why aren't there mass protests over the loss of 15 years in health care reform. No one in any media has picked up on this key difference in getting to a solution between the candidates.

Obama understands the need to listen to different points of view and find common ground to move to a solution. The relevant excerpt from the debate transcript and David Brooks’ Feb 5 column follows.

FROM THE 02 21 08 Clinton/Obama debate in Austin, Texas DEBATE TRANSCRIPT: OBAMA: Now, there are legitimate arguments for why Senator Clinton and others have called for a mandate, and I'm happy to have that debate. But the notion that I am leaving 15 -- 15 million people out somehow implies that we are different in our goals of providing coverage to all Americans, and that is simply not true. We think that there's going to be a different way of getting there. One last point I want to make on the health care front. I admire the fact that Senator Clinton tried to bring about health care reform back in 1993. She deserves credit for that. (Applause.) But I -- I've said before I think she did it in the wrong way because it wasn't just the fact that the insurance companies and the drug companies were battling her -- and no doubt they were -- it was also that Senator Clinton and the administration went behind closed doors, excluded the participation even of Democratic members of Congress who had slightly different ideas than the ones that Senator Clinton had put forward. And as a consequence, it was much more difficult to get Congress to cooperate. And I've said that I'm going to do things differently.

February 5, 2008 The New York Times Op-Ed Columnist By DAVID BROOKS The Cooper Concerns ‘I’m not a Hillary-hater. She’s been an outstanding senator. She hung tough on Iraq through the dark days of 2005. In this campaign, she has soldiered on bravely even though she has most of the elected Democrats, news media and the educated class rooting against her. But there are certain moments when her dark side emerges and threatens to undo the good she is trying to achieve. Her campaign tactics before the South Carolina primary were one such moment. Another, deeper in her past, involved Jim Cooper, a Democratic congressman from Tennessee. Cooper is one of the most thoughtful, cordial and well-prepared members of the House. In 1992, he came up with a health care reform plan that would go on to attract wide, bipartisan support. A later version had 58 co-sponsors in the House — 26 Republicans and 32 Democrats. It was sponsored in the Senate by Democrat John Breaux and embraced by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, among others. But unlike the plan Hillary Clinton came up with then, the Cooper plan did not include employer mandates to force universal coverage.

On June 15, 1993, Cooper met with Clinton to discuss their differences. Clinton was “ice cold” at the meeting, Cooper recalls. “It was the coldest reception of my life. I was excoriated.” Cooper told her that she was getting pulled too far to the left. He warned that her plan would never get through Congress. Clinton’s response, Cooper now says, was: “We’ll crush you. You’ll wish you never mentioned this to me.” In the weeks and months following that meeting, the Clinton administration reached out to Cooper. As David Broder and Haynes Johnson wrote in “The System,” their history of the health care reform effort, President Bill Clinton invited Cooper to go jogging and play golf.

Others in the Clinton White House thought Cooper was right on the merits, and privately let him know. But Hillary Clinton set up a war room to oppose Cooper, who was planning to run for the Senate in 1994. As the Broder and Johnson book makes clear, Clinton and her aides believed Cooper was pursuing his own political agenda. They accused him of crafting his plan in order to raise money from the insurance and hospital industries. They said he was in league with the for-profit hospitals to crush competitors and monopolize the industry. They did this despite the fact that Cooper’s centrist health care approach was entirely consistent with his overall philosophy. At one meeting in the West Wing, a source told Broder and Johnson, Clinton “kind of got this evil look and said, ‘We’ve got to do something about this Cooper bill. We’ve got to kill it before it goes any further.’ ” Clinton denounced the Cooper plan as “dangerous and threatening.” Deputies were dispatched to Tennessee to attack his plan. Senator Jay Rockefeller said that Cooper is “a real fraud. I hope he doesn’t make it to this place.” According to Newsweek, Clinton brought an aide with a video camera to a meeting with senators and asked the senators to denounce Cooper on the spot.

The Clinton effort backfired. It temporarily raised his profile back home. Her health care reform failed, too. She says she’s learned the lessons from that failure, but she remains icy toward Cooper. Her health care memos, including a three-page memo drafted in preparation for her meeting with Cooper, have not been made public by the National Archives.

Moreover, the debate Clinton is having with Barack Obama echoes the debate she had with Cooper 15 years ago. The issue, once again, is over whether to use government to coerce people into getting coverage. The Clintonites argue that without coercion, there will be free-riders on the system. They’ve got a point. But there are serious health care economists on both sides of the issue. And in the heat of battle, Clinton has turned the debate between universal coverage and universal access into a sort of philosophical holy grail, with a party of righteousness and a party of error. She’s imposed Manichaean categories on a technical issue, just as she did a decade and half ago. And she’s done it even though she hasn’t answered legitimate questions about how she would enforce her universal coverage mandate.

Cooper, who, not surprisingly, supports Barack Obama, believes that Clinton hasn’t changed. “Hillary’s approach is so absolutist, draconian and intolerant, it means a replay of 1993.” He argues that her more coercive approach would once again be a political death knell. No Republican will support it. Red state Democrats will face impossible pressures at home. It’s smarter to begin by offering people affordable access to coverage and evolve from there.

Cooper is, of course, a man who has been burned in the past. But it is legitimate to wonder if adults can really change all that much. A defter politician would have reached out to Cooper and made an attempt to address the concerns he represents.’

originally posted Feb, 2008, revised March 5, 2008

Mar 2nd, 2008 - - How could Senator Clinton win?

Michael Tenery — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:16:57 EST

As supporters of Senator Barack Obama for president in behooves us to walk in the opponent’s shoes. To understand them will help cooperation with fellow democrats who support Hillary when he wins. In the unlikely event he loses, perhaps we can find a way to support Hillary as the Democratic nominee, if only to bring the troops home, and turn this economy around.

The problem lies in the very first question you ask. How does she win? With Texas and Ohio not even yet voting she needs to win both. Not only win both, but win them decisively. If she does win both decisively with 65% or more then she can say that the momentum has turned for her. She still faces a mountainous climb up the primary elective slope. She would need to win the remaining states by 68-70%.

Healthcare like Social Security?

M. A. Coston — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:48:51 EST

I'm by no means trying to attack Hillary Clinton; I just don't get this comparison of Healthcare to Social Security. In last night's debate and elsewhere, to paraphrase, she talked about how you must get everyone to buy in, like we do for Social Security, or the attempt to have universal health care would fail. I find this problematic for two reasons. One, as a 27 year old, I am not promised Social Security even though I have paid into it. Now this complaint might be rejected because I'm not really paying for myself, but for current senior citizens; I would be, however, reaping the benefit of healthcare which I would be paying for and receiving at the same time. Secondly, Social Security is not privatized as this proposed healthcare would be. I find it somewhat troubling to be fined or forced to buy into a private plan because the primary concern is probably not the people, but profits. In addition, I feel there is too much of a reliance on the medical/pharmaceutical establishment: We are prescribed drugs unncecessarily/excessively, we should be using more complementary/preventive medicine, etc.

The Health Care Mandate Argument

Patrick Fabian — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:14:29 EST

At the last debate, when challenged on the issue of mandating participation in her health care plan, HRC mentioned Social Security and Medicare as successful programs that contained a mandate. These are both successful, popular programs. They are also both "single payer" programs. If this example comes up in the next debate, I think it should be pointed out that HRC's invocation of single payer systems as an example of a successful mandate is not an appropriate argument.

I have no problem with a single payer health care system. I do not think that the country as a whole is ready yet. We may eventually get there. The dislocation in the health insurance industry alone makes it problematic to advocate for such a change until we have a better idea of how such a system might work.

rev 03 05 08: Why 1993 health care failed over mandate

Taube — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:49:24 EST

When you discuss the difference on mandates and the different way of getting to universal coverage, please understand what happened in 1993 between HRC and moderate Democrats in congress, Jim Cooper of Tennessee and then Senators Bill Bradley and Pat Moynihan. In the Austin, TX debate, Obama inserted the point raised by David Brooks in his Feb. 5 column “The Cooper Concerns” about HRC’s absolutist opposition to Jim Cooper’s (D, TN) centrist health care plan in 1993 which did not include a mandate. Brooks’ column was the most emailed NYT article that week.

Obama understands the need to listen to different points of view and find common ground to move to a solution.

The relevant excerpt from the debate transcript and David Brooks’ Feb 5 column follows.

FROM THE 02 21 08 Clinton/Obama debate in Austin, Texas DEBATE TRANSCRIPT:

OBAMA: Now, there are legitimate arguments for why Senator Clinton and others have called for a mandate, and I'm happy to have that debate. But the notion that I am leaving 15 -- 15 million people out somehow implies that we are different in our goals of providing coverage to all Americans, and that is simply not true. We think that there's going to be a different way of getting there.

One last point I want to make on the health care front. I admire the fact that Senator Clinton tried to bring about health care reform back in 1993. She deserves credit for that. (Applause.) But I -- I've said before I think she did it in the wrong way because it wasn't just the fact that the insurance companies and the drug companies were battling her -- and no doubt they were -- it was also that Senator Clinton and the administration went behind closed doors, excluded the participation even of Democratic members of Congress who had slightly different ideas than the ones that Senator Clinton had put forward. And as a consequence, it was much more difficult to get Congress to cooperate.

And I've said that I'm going to do things differently.

February 5, 2008 The New York Times Op-Ed Columnist By DAVID BROOKS

The Cooper Concerns

I’m not a Hillary-hater. She’s been an outstanding senator. She hung tough on Iraq through the dark days of 2005. In this campaign, she has soldiered on bravely even though she has most of the elected Democrats, news media and the educated class rooting against her.

But there are certain moments when her dark side emerges and threatens to undo the good she is trying to achieve. Her campaign tactics before the South Carolina primary were one such moment. Another, deeper in her past, involved Jim Cooper, a Democratic congressman from Tennessee.

Cooper is one of the most thoughtful, cordial and well-prepared members of the House. In 1992, he came up with a health care reform plan that would go on to attract wide, bipartisan support. A later version had 58 co-sponsors in the House — 26 Republicans and 32 Democrats. It was sponsored in the Senate by Democrat John Breaux and embraced by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, among others.

But unlike the plan Hillary Clinton came up with then, the Cooper plan did not include employer mandates to force universal coverage.

On June 15, 1993, Cooper met with Clinton to discuss their differences. Clinton was “ice cold” at the meeting, Cooper recalls. “It was the coldest reception of my life. I was excoriated.”

Cooper told her that she was getting pulled too far to the left. He warned that her plan would never get through Congress. Clinton’s response, Cooper now says, was: “We’ll crush you. You’ll wish you never mentioned this to me.”

In the weeks and months following that meeting, the Clinton administration reached out to Cooper. As David Broder and Haynes Johnson wrote in “The System,” their history of the health care reform effort, President Bill Clinton invited Cooper to go jogging and play golf. Others in the Clinton White House thought Cooper was right on the merits, and privately let him know.

But Hillary Clinton set up a war room to oppose Cooper, who was planning to run for the Senate in 1994. As the Broder and Johnson book makes clear, Clinton and her aides believed Cooper was pursuing his own political agenda. They accused him of crafting his plan in order to raise money from the insurance and hospital industries. They said he was in league with the for-profit hospitals to crush competitors and monopolize the industry. They did this despite the fact that Cooper’s centrist health care approach was entirely consistent with his overall philosophy.

At one meeting in the West Wing, a source told Broder and Johnson, Clinton “kind of got this evil look and said, ‘We’ve got to do something about this Cooper bill. We’ve got to kill it before it goes any further.’ ”

Clinton denounced the Cooper plan as “dangerous and threatening.” Deputies were dispatched to Tennessee to attack his plan. Senator Jay Rockefeller said that Cooper is “a real fraud. I hope he doesn’t make it to this place.” According to Newsweek, Clinton brought an aide with a video camera to a meeting with senators and asked the senators to denounce Cooper on the spot.

They’ve got a point. But there are serious health care economists on both sides of the issue. And in the heat of battle, Clinton has turned the debate between universal coverage and universal access into a sort of philosophical holy grail, with a party of righteousness and a party of error. She’s imposed Manichaean categories on a technical issue, just as she did a decade and half ago. And she’s done it even though she hasn’t answered legitimate questions about how she would enforce her universal coverage mandate.

Cooper, who, not surprisingly, supports Barack Obama, believes that Clinton hasn’t changed. “Hillary’s approach is so absolutist, draconian and intolerant, it means a replay of 1993.”

He argues that her more coercive approach would once again be a political death knell. No Republican will support it. Red state Democrats will face impossible pressures at home. It’s smarter to begin by offering people affordable access to coverage and evolve from there.

It is all about Mandate!

Republicans for Obama — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:58:02 EST

Very simply put to all super delegates. I am a Republican voting for Obama. I worked in Ohio four years ago to help have Bush win over Kerry. For the first time in 22 years I am voting democrat. I am going to Ohio to help Obama win. I have donated to his campaign. Nominate Clinton and the millions of new people brought to yur party by Obama are gone. I know I am - this is a special time in our history - if your own party cant recognize it than shame on the Democratic Party as a whole.

With Clinton you my win an election at the wire - or in the Supreme Court - With Obama - you win with a mandate. Whom do you think can bring about change. Someone that is loathed by the right - or someone like Obama that has brough us over from the right to support his candidacy -

What you pay monthly for Hillary's insurance mandate

Dawn in Superstition Springs — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:34:09 EST

There is a reason that Hillary has not released detailed information and numbers related to her healthcare plan...

Someone from Massachusetts just sent me the rate card for their mandated insurance. This is the plan that Hillary is basing her health care insurance mandate proposal on. Remember folks, her plan does not provide healthcare, it mandates that you purchase an insurance policy -- and if you can't afford a policy, your wages get garnished. Many people will end up purchasing the cheapest policies that don't really cover much just to keep from paying these MONTHLY payments...

Health Care Differences

Jacques Casimir — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:53:42 EST

I agree both candidates offer very similar health care plans, yet there are some questions about Hillary's plan that needs answering.

IT says that if someone chooses not to purchase healthcare and they can afford it, they could either be a penalty or could be automatically enrolled etc.

MY question is how would it be determined if someone could afford it? By last years income tax? by payroll? by how much you make and how many dependents you have and where you live? It seems unless you have a department that simply goes case by case to determine this there will always be people getting squeezed. and how EXPENSIVE would it be to fund all that work? to ENFORCE the mandate, because if it is a soft mandate then its the same as no mandate.

I feel Obama's plan takes all that money that would be spent putting the system in place to have the mandate, fund the mandate , and enforce the mandate instead goes to lower the cost of healthcare beyond what Senator Clinton's plan offers.

I think in the end the people who choose to have health care should not have the cost rise because of people who do not want to enroll. The cost should be made as low as possible, if there is a problem afterwards address it but it would be much more manageable and smaller of a problem than what we are facing today and healthcare would be at a the lowest possible price.

mandate enforcement, paying for health care

allison — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:06:48 EST

While I understand Mr. Obama's thinking about only mandating insurance for children - and I think I agree with that - I wonder how that mandate will be enforced? And paid for?

In Massachusetts we're facing a situation where people would rather be fined than pay the insurance premium. So, while it's supposedly "mandated" it certainly doesn't mean that everyone ends up being covered. And if people simply can't afford it, how do penalties help?

Also, it seems

Open Letter to Superdelegates

Jennifer in St. Louis — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:18:07 EST

I support Senator Barack Obama. I do not support him because he is handsome or charismatic. I do not support him because he is an inspiring speaker. I do not believe in the cult of personality. I am not an “Obamabot” and I did not drink any Kool-Aid whatsoever.

Instead, I support him because I am very familiar with his policies, his political philosophy, his positions on issues, and his background. He has all the tools to be a successful president without being so far removed from the “real world” of the average voter that he is incapable of understanding our concerns on a personal level.

i’ll vote republican before i’ll vote clinton

jonathan | cvg — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:55:44 EST

full disclosure: i'm a registered independent. i support a multi-party system and believe so deeply to that end that i voted for the green party candidate in the year bush stole the election from gore. gore fairly won the popular vote, and i have admired gore since reading his book as a highschool senior. yet, i supported my greater desire to see a third party win 5% of the popular vote in order to receive federal funding like democrats and republicans. i voted against the establishment to usher forward change. afterall, i am a registered independent. that means i vote based on the candidate. i vote with my conscious.

i believe that when two parties are financed by the same special interests/lobbyists, which is largely corporate america, then the nuances between the two parties are not as drastic as the american people are led to believe. why? ultimately, the donors are owed favors and even when they donate more to one party or candidate than the other... ultimately, they donate to both and demand the same type of result from both parties.

this year is different. my candidate, barack obama, is a proven leader at every level of government and in community service. he has refused special interest contributions and will act in favor of the american people, not just corporate america. unlike any candidate in my lifetime, he inspires me to believe that the time for change is now. i am not alone. he breaks records in every state that casts votes. in south carolina, history was made when a "republican state" experienced more voters in the democratic primary than in the republican primary. had it been a general election, barack obama would have won a state that has long voted for republican presidents.

i have been asked whether i prefer obama or simply oppose clinton. for the love of god, i prefer obama! i will vote for the leader who will make the states united and make my country a place to be proud of again. i will vote with my conscious. obama is the best qualified leader for the job. however, because i educated myself on both candidates, i have ample reasons not to vote for hillary clinton or the clinton dynasty. in fact, i'll vote for republican before i'll vote clinton.

my preferred candidate list should they have run in 2008:

barack obama

al gore

ralph nader

john edwards

colin powell (republican)

hillary clinton

as it turns out, hillary clinton does not make the top five. while she has reason to ask obama to be her running mate on the sad chance she wins the nomination, analysts and i agree that obama does not need clinton to win a general election. the vast majority of clinton supporters will vote for barack obama when he wins the nomination. unlike clinton, barack obama is poised to beat the republican candidate. obama supporters, some of whom have never been inspired enough to participate in the voting process or whom are independent, may not support hillary clinton. these inspired supporters of obama may choose to sit out again or vote mccain... should hillary clinton win the nomination. for years, the youth promised they would "rock the vote" and yet, until this year, they never showed up.

who is she kidding? hillary clinton is a political mastermind, but she also has a long track record of political calculation to appeal to popular opinion. a track record even a mastermind can not erase. today, she speaks passionate about unions and the working class. yet, before becoming first lady, hillary clinton supported Wal-Mart's position against unions. in addition, abc news reported clinton allegedly aided the launch of misleading social campaigns of the early 90's at wal-mart like women in management, green commerce, and made in the USA. tisk tisk.

there is also her investments in companies that were in direct contradiction to what she claims to be her current convictions as a presidential candidate. yes, just when hillary and bill were gearing up for this race for the white house, they unloaded several investments from their portfolio in companies that would have invited criticism. but, what would have been wiser as a presidential hopeful who had been prepped and groomed since bush stole the election from gore was to never have invested in companies contradicting her political platform... you know... since these are her honest social convictions dear to her heart, she says.

my favorite may be the notion that she is an equal agent for change in spite of her inability to unite or inspire like my candidate, barack obama. the truth is that she accepts tremendous sums of special interest/lobbyist contributions (twice as much as mccain and romeny combined) and barack does not. which candidate do you think owes a few favors. in fact, despite health care reform being so important to hillary, that industry is among her top contributors to both of her senate races and her current presidential nod. i wonder how affordable she will make health care costs for us since the health care industry has been so generous to her? i wonder if these contributions have anything to do with her sudden silence after coming to the white house in 1992 promising to do the things she is still promising. money makes people do the darnest things. that is why i am proud of my candidate's stance against washington lobbyists and special interest contributions.

someone indicated that he did not believe that hillary clinton accepted huge contributions from the health care and pharmaceutical industries dating back to her first campaign for the senate. what is there not to believe? it's a matter of public record. as first lady, hillary clinton was extremely outspoken, and her largest pet project was to chair the reform of the united states health care system. after at least a year of no progress, hillary clinton shut up. our health care system was not fixed or improved... not after eight years of opportunity. yet, those same special interests she spoke against and said she wanted to regulate have since written her two senate and presidential campaigns extraordinary checks. that's why you will hear comments about capitol hill serving special interests. it's why americans are cynical about politics in general. no one can debate with me whether hillary has accepted the funds. again, its public record. and, unless you are delusional, you can't argue the contributions do not influence her or lead to compromised decisions in, at least partial, favor of the companies entangled in the health care we pretend to want to reform... positively change.

people attempt to argue that obama does not support universal healtcare. i heard clinton and edwards debate the definition of universal. it stands to reason that the proposed "univeral healthcare" from the clinton dynasty is nothing more than mandated healthcare with only the very poor earning subsidies to offset the high costs. others will be fined like in new hampshire or have their wages garnished. hillary clinton is misusing the ideology behind universal healthcare which is successfully practiced much differently throughout europe, canada, and cuba! watch the movie sicko. it is a entertaining way to discover what real universal healthcare offers. barack obama's plan is truer to the ideology behind universal healthcare by assuring low-cost policies so affordable that no one would rather pay a fine. obama has been the only candidate to offer a reasonable health care plan that drives down costs, provides relief for anyone under 25 who may have education costs, and mandates coverage only for children.

let us not forget that in the recent cnn debate between only obama and clinton... obama remained consistent and true to his original decision to oppose the vote allowing bush to invade iraq. on the other hand, hillary never once admitted she made a mistake or used bad judgment. she claims that she never expected bush to misuse his power to go to war. yet, the language in the "permission slip" that congressed passed was clear. but to be fair, who reads all of a document before we sign it, right? apparently she did. in her speech regarding the vote to support war, she admits that it "was one of the toughest decisions" she had to make since it may lead to war. but wait, didn't she try to mislead the american people into thinking that bush abused his power and she never intended for the vote to lead to war?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

like barack said. it's important to be right on day one.
the momentum. the movement. the change. the time is now.

don't blindly vote based on race or gender. don't blindly vote for "experience" unless you understand the truth behind what that "experience" has been. registered voters must soon select the candidate that will effectively usher in a new post-bush era and heal the nation... internally and externally. please be wise and research your choice. as a young professional, i am up against colleagues more experienced and many times the same age as my parents. they have experience, but it has never made me less innovative or less of an asset. and many times, ok... almost always... my efforts were spot on. i have been the one that could get the job done.

likewise, obama is spot on.
obama will get the job done. obama will really meet our needs.

don't discount barack obama and his judgment nor his impressive experience and proven leadership at EVERY level of government. his efforts in just more than 12 months have matched more than a decade of grooming and preparation by the forces in support of the clinton dynasty. DON'T SUCCUMB TO BRANDING... a familiar name. i usually would not speak against branding, but, as a marketer, i see pass it. don't buy into the hype that she is "experienced" when her record is often reeks of shiiite.

we may find different things important, but for me, i have never seen a candidate that has been consistent and outspoken on all of the political and social issues important to me. there's a 64 page "blueprint for change" and highlights of his overall stance on the major issues at www.barackobama.com simply click on the issues tab on the top menu. if you think that hillary is the only candidate with a plan, you are mistaken. you might have heard that after a debate in relation to an answer to a specific question or you may have heard such a claim from the clinton campaign. but, i'd ask for you to research for yourself. with the internet, identifiying reputable resources is at our fingertips.

i listened to dozens upon dozens of speeches and read the candidates platforms (available online). barack obama and i agree on iraq, lgbt rights, health care and the environment. either candidate will stimulate the economy... it won't be difficult thanks to bush 2, just like it wasn't difficult for bill after bush 1. so therefore, which candidate has fought for and will motivate the american people to rally for change? the difference between the states and europe is that in a country like france, the people rally for change and the governement is always reminded that they work for the people. our government thinks they control us because we are not smart enough or care enough. obama is the only candidate in my lifetime that rallies people and motivates them to participate. with the people behind him, we can make a positive change now. we will remind the congress and the senate who they work for and what we want! obama will not fight alone. and you can trust him because the worst thing anyone in clinton's camp can leak about him is that he experimented with drugs or has a non-christian father. wasn't bill clinton the one who didn;t inhale? ok, right. meanwhile, hillary clinton has been accused of numerous crimes in the last two decades which always seem to fade away.

obama began his career as a community organizer. his campaign in just under a year has rose up and proved a awesome force to be reckoned with. in contrast, hillary clinton has been groomed for the 2008 presidential race for more than a decade. she began with the unofficial blessing of the press and democratic party. no one could have predicted or expected barack obama to organize and inspire grassroots campaign activity unlike most of us has seen in our lifetimes. no one would have wagered a bet that enough people would unite to make him a front-runner in the 2008 presidential race in under a year. but... he has. it's that same energy and brilliant leadership that we lack in the united states. former democratic presidential nominee and united states senator, john kerry endorsed obama's candidacy because he is uniquely situated to inspire millions of Americans to join together and come together in a movement to demand real change in washington. don't tell me you don't think obama can do the job. unions, notable politicians, educators, celebrities, and i say YES WE CAN.

be smart. vote smart. usher forward change. support barack obama.

who knows when someone will be willing to stand against the establishment and motivate real change and progression into the 21st century again. believe... and yes we can.

~ j

Small Business to Benefit from Obama Health Plan

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:23:29 EST

http://www.nfib.com/object/IO_35533.html

The National Federation of Independent Businesses is a powerful small business lobbying group based in my town of Nashville, TN. They recently sent a key position paper on healthcare reform and I think Barack Obama's plan fits better than anyone else's when it comes to meeting the needs of citizens and businesses.

Affordability is the key lever that will increase access to healthcare and improve quality. At the same time, a streamlined healthcare system will also benefit providers. Obama has a knack for doing what is in the best interests of all parties, rather than just pushing some blind ideology or bowing to a special interest group.

Obama developed his plan before NFIB ever issued this statement. He's not "playing to the test" like other candidates would do. He's offering better solutions and spurring a better discussion. Obama's gifts as a statesman are evident and belie his youth.

Individual health care mandates are a conservative idea

Yiannis aka Stephen Colber(t) for Vice Presiden(t) — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:32:34 EST

And who best to blast this conservative idea:

"The individual mandates create some additional problems, at least as we analyze them. It makes it very difficult to determine and monitor who is in the system and who is out. It would require tracking individuals as they move in and out of jobs, as they move in and out of the insurance market. And it would mean, if you provided a subsidy scheme to support low-wage individuals, a determination as to when their income reached some arbitrary level as to what kind of subsidy they would still be entitled to. It would require, in our view, the IRS to engage in an enormous administrative oversight of our health care system." - HRC, 1993

However in 2007:

"In our interview, Clinton said the models for her current proposal were the 1993 Republican plan and the individual-mandate plan passed in Massachusetts by former Governor Mitt Romney."

This is what appeasers learn while they stay in Washington DC.

For more info http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/10/116/99540

You can email Krugman, the columnist of the NYTimes who started this debate here.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?8qa

Click write to Krugman

Mandating Immortality

Power From The People — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:42:26 EST

The so-called "health care crisis" will not be "solved" until humans accept their mortality. When did we become gods, that we should live forever? This failure of reason and spirit will prove to be democracy’s fatal flaw, our Achilles heel. We are born human, yet will vote for immortality. But no nation can finance the headlong pursuit of eternal life here on earth. Ours will die trying.

Power from the people!

Hillary Lead Callisthenic And Aerobic Exercises On Cspan?

Power From The People — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:14:55 EST

So this time Hillary will REQUIRE everyone to purchase medical insurance. Wouldn’t it be more effective to require everyone to exercise, practice sound nutrition, and stay within 10% of their ideal weight? Not practical? Then assess credits and surcharges for people more or less willing to reduce expected health care costs, as evidenced by their health-index, calculated per a required annual physical exam. Kind of like their system for trading CO2 credits. Requiring that everyone simply share the consequence of everyone else’s bad behavior is surely a very bad idea.

In 1992 I suggested that First Lady Hillary might have greater impact on American health by leading callisthenic and aerobic exercises on C-span. Still think it might be worthwhile - maybe First Laddie Bill could do that? Or better yet, Mr or Mrs Obama?

Power from the people!