Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

this from the wall street journal, interesting article

Posted By: cj on 2008-10-29
In Reply to: Bringing up from below about taxes/unions - gourdpainter

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122515112102674263-lMyQjAxMDI4MjI1ODEyNTgxWj.html


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Wall Street Journal for one

I know, I know a "liberal rag"!!!!   ha ha ha


 


From the Wall Street Journal

World greets Obama:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122592900344403049.html


Obama's Dour Vision:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122592129148302567.html


What an Obama Presidency Means for Your Money:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122591367859702209.html


Pelosi, Automakers to Meet:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122599560485005549.html


Obamas's Real Opposition:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593259568103473.html


 


wall street journal more credible than CNN?
One of them is a link to a video...hard to say that was manufactured. It wasn't...I saw it live. Just leave it up to the people to decide. Both sides presented, and people can do their own research as well. They should not take what I post for the truth, or what anyone posts. It is a place to start to look on their own. I would just advise...both sides...anything on blogs needs to be verified with something a bit more credible.

This is America, and there is nothing wrong with presenting both sides of an issue. Is there?
Wall Street Journal says Obama's tax cuts

Some need to pay close attention to this.........  it's called welfare handouts.  "Entitled mentality".  The working class will get NO tax cuts.  You all will be working to put money in the hands of those that do not.  It makes perfectly good sense.  I've been saying there is no way he can do anything he is leading people to believe he can because 1/3 of people in this country pay NO TAXES.   He has led so many to believe he will cut middle class when he can't.  He is blatantly trying to disguise "government handouts" as "tax credits".   You want your hard earned money going to everyone who doesn't bother to work? 


One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.


It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”


For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals[.]


 


It was leaked to the Wall Street Journal, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Assuming you have one?
Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch
same owner of Fox Noise
Oh Wow. Don't think Wall Street
likes what was done today. It's down 383.73 points and it's not even 4:00 yet!
90% of Wall Street is owned and run by....sm
liberal democrats.



Wall Street Grieves

The stages of grief:


Denial - okay that was last year, just read old Paulson reports.


Anger -  that was Lehman Bros.


Bargaining - TARP anyone?


Depression - 


Acceptance -


I think we have a ways to go until they get over it.....


It should be $$ for banks, big oil and wall street, right?
x
Wall street bonuses expected

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/wall-street-bonuses-expects-come-season-despite-bailout/


Paying bonuses this year is likely to result in a lot of backlash from the average American. After all, even with bonuses down dramatically, they are still higher than the average American, who is losing his or her home, makes. Not to mention the government bailout of financial firms, which seems to change daily, is coming from taxpayer dollars. Concerns abound—rightly or wrongly--that some of the $700 billion bailout could go to pay bonuses this year.


Wall Street has zero confidence in Obama's
nm
Wall street, China, Japan, whoever they gave
@
Wall Street loves the new president....ouch! nm
//
Wall Street loves the new president....ouch! nm
//
Should Wall Street Bankers have their compensation capped?

Wall Street bankers, with their $18 billion in bonuses, private jets and gaudy conferences, are causing headaches for the GOP.


President Obama has proposed capping compensation for executives at banks that take taxpayer bailout money at $500,000. Republicans hate the idea -- a position puts them uncomfortably on the side of people currently about as popular as child-porn producers and subprime mortgage brokers.


Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed the "tone deaf" bankers for creating the political environment that allows Obama to call for a cap.


"Because of their excesses, very bad things begin to happen, like the United States government telling a company what it can pay its employees. That's not a good thing in America," Kyl told the Huffington Post.


"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).


Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that he is "one of the chief defenders of Obama on the Republican side" for the president's efforts to reach across the aisle. But, said Inhofe, "as I was listening to him make those statements I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"


Democrats argue that banks that take government money must accept any rules the government decides to send with it. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Rep. Barney Frank are both working on legislation that would complement Obama's attempt to get a handle on executive compensation.


It's not a novel concept, and it's one the GOP supports -- when applied to welfare recipients, at least. "We demand that welfare recipients do an honest day's work for their checks.


"Evil" is George Bush, Wall Street, the Banks,
NM
I hate Wall Street. Hope that whole fake-money
$ + $ on WS = 0.
ABC: Obama Is Hypocritical For Limiting Wall Street Pay While Having A ‘Lavish Lifest
Yesterday, President Obama instituted a pay cap on bailed out businesses after it was revealed that Wall Street doled out an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses last year. “If the taxpayers are helping you, then you’ve got certain responsibilities to not be living high on the hog,” he explained.

In what appears to be an attempt to call Obama a hypocrite, ABC’s Scott Mayerowitz “reports” today that the President also has a “lavish lifestyle.” Under the title: “Obama’s Perks: Private Jet, Chef Tax-Free,” ABC notes that Obama earns $400,000 dollars a year and even has a private jet:



The president makes $400,000 a year, but hasn’t received a raise from Congress since 2001. He also gets a $50,000 annual entertainment expense account (any unused money at the end of the year must go back to the Treasury.)


Then there is the use of two private jets, Boeing 747s better known as Air Force One. And of course the constant security details, drivers, a private chef, a country vacation estate and the rent-free use of a well-known, 132-room mansion called the White House. The president also used to have a yacht, until Jimmy Carter sold it.


As its evidence that “corporate America” is upset, ABC said that “some Wall Street bloggers” are angry with the compensation cap. But the article cited only one blogger, Dealbreaker.com, who — apparently poking fun at Sen. Claire McCaskill’s statement — remarked, “Some accountability needs to be put in place. We won’t have them kicking sand in the face of taxpayers any longer.” Dealbreaker.com also suggests charging rent for White House tenants.


Comparing the President to Wall Street CEOs is absurd. The “private jet” that Obama uses is Air Force One, which is used as a security precaution and necessary for the dozens of staff and press that accompany the President on every trip. Each use of the jet by the President is regarded as a “classified military operation” in order to ensure the President’s safety.


Furthermore, Obama’s salary is set by Congress (whose members are elected by the public). CEO compensation is decided internally within the company, usually by its board of directors. The problem with recent excessive CEO compensation was that executives receiving federal funds were still rewarded for failure with tens of millions of dollars from their companies.


The President, on the other hand, does not get a bonus for his performance, good or bad. Indeed, Presidents Bush and Obama earn the same salary. County Fair at Media Matters has more.


Wait - he wants to monitor health care? Like he monitored Wall Street? Pass.
xx
the death of Wall Street is the death of the USA...you really want that????? nm

Yes, very interesting article. Here's one from CNN sm
dated September 2002. Also, pictures do speak 1000 words.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/


Interesting article
Here is something about the criminals.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868


Interesting article

A little long but worth the read - Written by D Morris who used to work for the Clintons and were friends with them.


Bill and Hillary Clinton have always believed that they’re very different than the rest of us. Over their more than 30 years in politics together, they’ve learned one important and consistent lesson: that rules don’t matter. Rules don’t apply to them. Rules are for other people. Rules can be bent, changed, manipulated.


And that philosophy has worked very well for them.


So it’s particularly ironic that they are now turning to the Democratic Party Rules Committee to try and steal the presidential nomination that Hillary has already definitively lost to Barack Obama in the popular vote, the delegate count, and the total number of states.



Now she’ll try to get the Democratic bosses to rig it for her. If the rules don’t work, change them.


Under the guise of justice and fair play, Hillary Clinton is, in effect, asking the Rules Committee to rule that the party’s rules should be ignored — the same rules that the Rules Committee enacted and that Hillary and all of the other democrats supported without dissent. But that was then and now is now.


Hillary wants the Florida and Michigan votes to be seated, even though it would still make no difference in the outcome. She can’t win. After her embarrassing near loss in Indiana and her sound trouncing in North Carolina, Hillary Clinton is a fatally wounded candidate. She’s out of money, out of votes, and out of options.


But she won’t give up. She’ll never go home until the day that Obama actually reached the magic number of delegates.


Why?


Because she and her husband both believe that she is entitled to the nomination, entitled to the presidency. So they’re waiting for the inevitable signal that it will, in fact, be hers.


No matter that neither the voters nor the party leaders want her. No matter that she has to spend more than $11 million of her own money to keep her campaign afloat.


According to the Clintons, the nomination should be hers. She’s earned it. She’s ready. She wants it. She and Bill are sure that she’d be a great candidate.


So that’s why they’re waiting. Because there’s one other lesson they’ve both learned — that over time, anything can change. And they’re waiting for any break that time might bring.


They’ve see it before. When they were worried about her criminal liability in the Whitewater mess, they held their ground. Eventually, as the years went on, Jim McDougal, the chief witness against them, died of a heart attack in prison. When the special prosecutor was after her for perjury, she learned how to delay and then get by off on a technicality. Lost in the dust were the allegations of Hillary’s perjury. Once more, time was kind to her.


It was the same story during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. At first it seemed that Bill would be quickly thrown out of the White House, but two years later, although impeached, he was still incredibly popular. Time and patience had brought control of events back to the Clintons.


When they left the White House in utter disgrace over their ethical lapses and greed, they were under attack from even the friendliest of liberal media. But years of keeping their heads low, working hard at getting along with people in the Senate, turning to charitable works (with a little help from George W. Bush) and helping the party regulars erased the sordid images. Memories of pardons sold for campaign and library contributions, their scoundrel lobbyist brothers, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ‘gifts’ that were solicited from people who wanted favors from the White House disappeared. Once again, time healed all.


Now, although seemingly out of time, they are still waiting. Something could happen to change things in just a minute.


They’re patiently waiting for that minute.


But beyond their belief in Hillary’s inalienable right to the nomination and Hillary’s inevitability, there are two more factors that are keeping her in.


One is a combination of Hillary’s incredible stubbornness and Bill’s growing arrogance. They both believe that no one, absolutely no one tells them what to do. No one is going to force them – a former president and a senator — to do anything. So the more people tell them that Hillary should quit the race, the more determined they are that she should stay in.


And finally, there seems to be an uncharacteristic absence of a reality base in Hillary’s thinking. Normally, she is a no-nonsense pragmatic politician who understand when she’s up and when she’s not. But lately she seems to ignore everything that’s in front of her except the supportive cheering of the partisan crowds and the certitude of Bill Clinton.


The proof of this is that she has lent a total of $11.6 million to her campaign. The Clintons are not people who part with a dime very easily. For them to fork over that much money to a failing campaign already in deep debt is the clearest statement that they are out of touch. Even after she won Pennsylvania — by only 12 delegates — there was no mathematical way for her to win the nomination. But she then poured another $6.4 million into the campaign coffers.


The Clintons are still waiting for a miracle that isn’t going to happen. They’re hoping that over time something big will derail Obama (no doubt they’re still frantically looking for that something).


And they’re stubbornly refusing to go home. And they’re desperately hoping to make sure the rules don’t count for them.


When the reality becomes unavoidable and it is clear that Hillary has to concede the nomination in 2008. Well, there’s always 2012 or 2016 or 2020 or …


These folks aren’t going away.


Interesting article
When I read this article, it left my head spinning. I found myself responding to it from both parties’ points of view. I suppose the author is trying to support Republican claims that the media is extremely biased in favor of Obama, if you “follow the money.” That same “liberal” media did not seem so favorable toward him when they reported on Mrs. Obama’s lack of patriotism/“militant” past, the Rev. Wright controversy, his willingness to meet with certain world leaders, his “lack of experience” or allegations that he is arrogant and out of touch.

Democrats who take the author up on his suggestion to “follow the money” might respond by saying, “sounds like sour grapes to me,” since the numbers indicate overwhelming evidence that members of the press (who are entitled to their own candidate choice) will be voting for Obama. Missing from the part about the PACs are any comments on how the Obama campaign is funded primarily the nickel and dime, $25 dollar or less contributions from the “masses” he supposedly is so out of touch with.

The elephant in the room is the reference made in passing to big media. That topic deserves a lot more attention than it gets in the “liberal” media. Media executives manage to keep that subject out of the news all together.

Another interesting article.......but the

   http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2090356/posts


Interesting article....
http://realdemocratsusa.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-im-finally-supporting-sarah-palin.html
interesting article also


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html
Interesting article

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover012207.htm


 


 


that is really an interesting article
I do remember 1960 and the Kennedy election, but I was pretty young and don't remember a lot of particulars. What I recall most is that my own parents were on opposite sides of the coin. My mom worked for the election commission and was very involved; my dad saw things differently than she did. We had stickers and pins and campaign stuff all over the place with differing sentiments! Okay, yeah, that would have been pretty divisive, too. Thanks for the link.
interesting article.
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/11/supreme-court-demands-obamas-birth.html
Interesting article

And before you even cry racist, this article was written by a black man.  And if we're talking about racists you should listen to my brother and his friends talk about the white boy or rednecks, and I've heard them call white people crackers, among all the other racial slurs that are too bad to write.  I see it here in my own neighborhood where I can't even say anything or the attacks will start in on me.  Here is a very interesting article.  Really an eye opener, but then again most independents and conservatives already have their eyes open.


And before you say it belongs on the religious board it doesn't because it is talking about Obama and where he stands on issues.  But because it does make some reference to religion I will post there too.


http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/4190/Brannon-Howse/


Very interesting article

This was written by a man named David Icke.  I have a couple of his books.  He is not American, so the article is not written by liberal or conservative.  This is how some in the world see Obama.  And the more and more I read other countries are saying we were "duped" and also they say now that the "novelty" has worn off we need to face reality of what is about to hit us.  - Just not good.


http://www.rense.com/icke1.htm


 


Interesting article on H.R. 676

http://www.hermes-press.com/health_industry_scam.htm


 


Interesting Time article. sm

I believe the title of it was Sarah Palin's Alaskanomics, but not sure.  Here is the link for it anyway.


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1839724-1,00.html


A very interesting NY Times article
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?pagewanted=1&em
Interesting article regarding polls
I have never been one to trust polls. I think a lot of people want to be "PC" and will tell you they will vote for Barack, but when it comes down to it when people actually vote it does not always line up with what they tell you. I think this election is way too close for anyone to be claiming victory or defeat at this point. Only on November 4th or 5th will we really know who the winner is. Here's the article.

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/could-the-bradley-effect-hurt-obama/210605?icid=100214839x1211583779x1200708670


Interesting two page article...

Obama Surfs Through.


http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/11/12/palin/


See article inside - very interesting

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/obama_government/news.php?q=1227843027


Interesting newspaper article....

Excerpts from article Scripps Howard News.  Can't link to it, could not find it on line. 


It's a new president, a new era, but maybe we can salvage something from the Bush-bashing days gone by, namely some of the political catchphrases that have updated meanings in our altered circumstances.  You begin to see their utility when you look at how critics worried (including most all Democrats and of course, our new president...my words, not article words) that President Bush was *sacrificing our liberty for security,* and then ask whether President Obama and the Democrats aren't aiming to sacrifice liberty (and free speech I might add) for different kinds of security.  They are.  The most obvious example is the eagerness to sacrifice free speech ont eh radio by reimposing the so-called Fairness Doctrine (fair...yeah right...Democrat version of fair...you are entitled to free speech ONLY if we like what you say, you always agree with us and never say negative things about us..lol).    Then there's the effort for enhanced electoral security.  Obama and the Democrats are in synch with a scheme to sacrifice the liberty of workers to use secret ballots in elections whether to have a union.  All kinds of commercial liberties might be denied as Obama surveys his options on keeping the market in tow, revising energy policies and combating greenhouse gases.  There's been talk of nationalizing banks.  And to give us security from dependence on foreign oil, Obama plans to deprive the auto industry of building the kind of cars consumers want.  It's a move that could do severe hurt to an alread damaged industry to no sure-fire avail.


Another catchphrase employed against Bush was that he had no *exit strategy* to get us out of the war in Iraq.  A genuine fear is that Obama administration and the Federal Reserve have no *exit strategy* to get us out of a spending and money-printing spree that could help stick us with a 1.7 trillion deficit in 2009, leading to a collapsed dollar, cause a doubling of taxes and, down the road, lead to runaway inflation and even worse, interminable economic crisis and devastating decline as a prosperous world power.  Especially considering that we are faced with trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security and that the bill starts coming due in relatively few years.  It's hard to see how we are going extract ourselves from the consequences of this.  We need a plan, or at the very least, an explanation of how we avoid disaster.  I have not heard any (me either!!). 


Finally, it was repeatedly said of Bush that he made up the well-founded if finally incorrect stories about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and thereby *lied us into a war.* Now there are people who are contending that Obama is using the moment's high anxiety to "lie us into socialism" (BINGO!).  It's said, for example, the stimulus package will do more to create a welfare state than to arouse the economy (so far the billions thrown at it have done little), and when you put this together with regulatory overkill now being plotted, we'll have a centralized, government-controlled economic system that routinely robs from Peter to pay Paul.  The recently passed House bill is loaded with evidence for this thesis...billions upon billions of wealth-transferring programs that address this crisis about as much as a sneeze. 


No one wants, or should want, to subject Obama to what Bush faced, criticism that was sometimes unfair to the point of calumny.  But there is too much at risk for us to all hold hands and sing kumbaya.  We need to vigorously debate, and some of the phrases used ad infinitum in the Bush years can help us put some very real issues into sharper focus.


All that being said in the article....why are Democrats not asking Obama the tough questions like they asked Bush?  Why are the people on this board not asking Obama the tough questions?  Oh...wait....what AM I thinking???   The great O has spoken...and that's all they need.


Thought this article interesting from CNN.
(CNN) -- President Obama on Friday called on Europe and the United States to drop negative attitudes toward each other and said "unprecedented coordination" is needed to confront the global economic crisis.

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Strasbourg, France, on his first overseas trip as president, Obama said, "I'm confident that we can meet any challenge as long as we are together."

Obama's comments came after the Group of 20 meeting in London, England -- which the president called "a success" of "nations coming together, working out their differences and moving boldly forward" -- and on the eve of a NATO summit in Strasbourg marking that organization's 60th anniversary.

Author and world affairs expert Fareed Zakaria spoke to CNN about the G-20:

CNN: What do you think of President Obama's trip to the G-20?

Fareed Zakaria: Although he brought a lot of star power -- the talk of the week -- at least in certain circles in Washington, New York and London -- has been that President Obama is failing in his role as leader of the free world. British columnist Jonathan Freedland wrote in The Guardian newspaper that President Obama looks neither like JFK nor FDR but rather JEC -- that's James Earl Carter -- better known here as Jimmy Carter.
'Fareed Zakaria GPS'
Former Secretary of State James Baker discusses President Obama's trip to Europe.
1 and 5 p.m. ET Sunday
see full schedule »

CNN: But it appears everyone is fawning over him.

Zakaria: President Obama has encountered a Europe that is more resistant to his policy proposals. The French and Germans have their own proposals. The Chinese and Russians have come with their own demands. And everyone expects him to apologize for having caused this mess in the first place.

CNN: But can they blame him for the mess?

Zakaria: Of course not. He didn't cause this mess, and no one really blames him personally. The problems President Obama is facing on the world stage have nothing to do with him. They are really a sign that personality cannot trump power in the world of realpolitik. The real story here is that power is shifting away from American dominance to a post-American world. Video Watch: James Baker on Obama's performance as president »

CNN: Are you just plugging your book?

Zakaria: Well, that was the argument of the book I wrote last year -- "The Post-American World" -- but what I had outlined is coming true. The evidence for this just keeps piling up.

CNN: Before you outline the evidence, remind me of the basic premise of your book.

Zakaria: It's that the rest of the world is rising to meet the United States' position -- economically, politically and culturally. I want to be clear that I am not talking about America's decline as much as the rise of the rest. While we stayed comfortable in our status quo position, the rest of the world was learning from us and are playing our game and succeeding in it.
Don't Miss

* U.S., Europe need to drop attitudes, Obama says
* Obama: Europe faces greater terror threat than U.S.
* Zakaria's book: 'The Post-American World'
* 'Fareed Zakaria: GPS'

CNN: OK. Now give me the examples from the G-20 meeting.

Zakaria: Let me name two things that struck me.

First, the Chinese have called for a new reserve currency to replace the dollar. This would never have happened 10 years ago -- back then, they needed America too much.

Then the French and Germans have said they want a new system of financial regulation that will replace the American-style one that has reigned for the last 20 years.

Why are the flexing their muscles? Because they can.

CNN: Is this happening because of the financial crisis?

Zakaria: The trends were there before, but it appears the financial crisis has accelerated the process. So we are entering the post-American world much faster than even I had anticipated.

CNN: Should we be scared?

Zakaria: Fear should not be our response. We need to recommit to our strengths. America's great -- and potentially insurmountable -- strength is it remains the most open, flexible society in the world, able to absorb other people, cultures, ideas, goods and services.

The country thrives on the hunger and energy of poor immigrants. Faced with the new technologies of foreign companies or growing markets overseas, it adapts and adjusts. When you compare this dynamism with the closed and hierarchical nations that were once superpowers, you sense that the United States is different and may not fall into the trap of becoming rich and fat and lazy.

CNN: What should the U.S. do?
advertisement

Zakaria: The United States needs to make its own commitment to the system clear. For America to continue to lead the world, we will have to first join it. President Obama seems to understand this and is doing his best at meetings like the G-20 and the NATO summit.

It is also imperative that more Americans become aware of what is going on in other places -- the other 90 percent of the world.
E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend
Share this on:
Mixx Digg Facebook del.icio.us reddit StumbleUpon MySpace
| Mixx it | Share

Interesting article see link inside

Looks like the feminists are supporting Palin.  Very interesting article and it explains why they are supporting her. 


http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/09/06/palin-punditry-you-wont-see-in-the-papers-or-on-the-tv-news/


 


 


Interesting article, did you see some of the comments and links...

This link is interesting..., very lengthy.


http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama%27s_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf


Interesting article:How to bring back the big 3

These articles were very interesting. GM states they may stop producing Hummer, Saab, Saturn, and PONTIAC. Geez, what will be left? They dropped my favorite car and now I drive a Buick.


http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/17/news/companies/sachs_carmakers.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009021711


And don't forget this article: What will and Won't Save Detroit


http://money.cnn.com/?cnn=yes


And this one: 4 Questions for GM & Chrysler


http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/16/news/companies/what_to_look_for/index.htm?postversion=2009021615


Very interesting article about Bush's secrets, lies and

to keep his papers, and his father's papers secret and privileged.


Martin Garbus: Impeachment is Now Real





Martin Garbus


Wed Dec 28, 1:41 PM ET



An hour after the New York Times described Bush’s illegal surveillance program, I wrote on the Huffington Post that Bush had committed a crime, a “High Crime,” and should be impeached.


Was there then enough evidence to justify the beginning of an attempt to impeach the President?


No.


Did the President have a good defense that he relied on Gonzalez, Ashcroft and the best lawyers in the country (in the Solicitor General’s and Department of Justice’s offices)?


Yes.


Would any significant number of Americans of Congressmen then support such a process?


No.


Given all that, would the turmoil and consequential turmoil have justified the start of that brutal process?


No.


But that has all changed.


Because we shall soon see the consequences of those warrantless searches, the consequences of the government’s five years of secrecy, and even the citizens of the “Red States” will be outraged. Firstly, the warrantless taps will infect hundreds of “terrorist” and criminal cases throughout the country. Not only future cases, but past and present cases, even if there were convictions or plea bargains after the survellance started.


The defendants in “terrorist” and other infected criminal cases, the Court must find, must get access to everything, or very close to everything to make sure they were never improperly surveilled.


The Bush Administration, in these cases will refuse, as did the Nixon administration, to divulge information on national security grounds. Many alleged critical cases must then be dismissed. It will include Organized Crime and drug cases.


The entire criminal process will be brought to a standstill. Cases that should take six months to a year, will take three times as long, as motions go up and down the appellate ladder – as federal judges trial disagree with each other. Appellate Courts will disagree on issues so novel and so important that the Supreme Court will look at them.


Secondly, there will be an endless amounts of civil suits, that we can see will result in substantial damage awards. Commentators claimed there cannot be suits because no one has standing to challenge the surveillance. They are wrong. They do not remember the history of the Palmer Raids in the 1920’s, the surveillance in the Sixties and Seventies. The future will show both the enormous information the new technology has gathered but also the dishonest minimization of the extent of the surveillance.


That minimization is standard operating procedure for governments, whether they be run by Democrats or Republicans.


Thirdly, and most importantly, it is safe to preduct there will be coverups. This administration is not known for its candor.


The coverup starts by trying to get away with the vauge and meaningless defenses. Both Nixon and Clinton tried that.

When that doesn’t work, the coverup will be based on a foundation of small lies. Both Nixon and Clinton tried that.

We do not yet know what the FISA judges already fear – that they have been not just ignored by the executive but misused. The public shall also learn about the FISA judges’ misuse of the FISA courts and their warrants. The courts were created to permit eavesdropping and electronic surveillance, not physical break-ins.

But the facts will show that the Bush administration, with the knowledge, and at times, the consent of, the FISA judges, conducted illegal physical break-ins - break-ins that to this day, the involved person, is unaware of.

Were the results of these “terrorist” break-ins then given to criminal authorities to start unrelated prosecutions? Of course.

The American public will also learn what this Administration has thus far successfully hidden. When Bush came into office, he signed an Exeutive Order making all of his, and his father’s, papers privileged. The order, extending 12 years out, also says if the President is incapacitated, then a third person can execute the privilege. This means anybody – a wife, a family lawyer, a child. The order also says the Vice President’s papers are privileged. It is an extraordinary Executive Order – this has never been anything like this. No one ever suggested a Vice President has executive privilege. If we do not find out what they are hiding, we will see witholding on a scale never before seen. He will no longer be able to use 9/11 and the war on terror as an excuse. It will confirm the fact that illegality and secrecy existed long before 9/11, that it started as soon as Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield got into office. It will show deliberate attempts to avoid any judicial or legislative oversight of the illegal use of executive privilege.

Impeachment procedures will come not because of wrongdoing but because of the discovery of lies.

Both Nixon and Cliton faced impeachments because they lied.

It was inconceivable before the Nixon and Clinton impeachment procedures began that there could be, or would be a country or Senate that would be responsive to it.

In the Nixon case, it spiraled from a petty break-in – in Clinton’s case from a petty sexual act.

But what Bush has done, and will do, to protect himself is not petty. It goes to the heart of the government. He already has a history of misleading the public on the searches conducted thus far. As he and his colleagues seek to minimize the vast amount of data collection, the lies will necessarily expand to cover the wrongdoing. Bush can be brought down.











Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

interesting article, have read many similar these past few days...
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1231-23.htm
This is from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution...
New SCHIP bill, same old reaction
Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 06:29 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Details were still sketchy by Wednesday evening, but House Democrats and the White House are talking about a compromise on the bill that would add hundreds of millions of dollars to Georgia’s PeachCare, a health insurance program for poor kids. The House may vote on it Thursday.

The few details that have already been leaked to reporters, however, indicate that the compromise won’t be changing the minds of the 10 Georgia congressmen who voted against the original bill - and then voted to uphold President Bush’s veto of it - this month.

The compromise would still expand SCHIP, or State Children’s Health Insurance Program, by $35 billion over five years and raise the money through an increase in tobacco taxes, Republicans complained.

It’s not clear yet whether Rep. Jim Marshall of Macon, one of only two House Democrats to vote against the original SCHIP bill, will change his vote - something the state Democratic Party would love to see him do on the eve of Marshall’s re-election campaign.

Rep. Tom Price, a Roswell Republican, has proposed an alternative bill to fund SCHIP through 2012 and he took Wednesday’s news about the compromise as a sign that Democrats have no intention of negotiating the bill with more than a handful of moderate Republicans.

“They’re not working with those of us who are interested in finding a solution, they’re not dealing with our leaders,” Price, a long-time physician, said. “My understanding of the changes they made in the compromise is that they’re nothing but fig leaves. They do nothing to change the structure of the bill.”

The House is expected to approve the compromise if it votes Thursday, just as it did the original version. What Democrats need to see in the vote, however, is whether their new proposal picked up the support of enough Republicans to override Bush’s predictable veto of the bill. The Senate already has those votes.

All that being said...and I won't give my personal opinion as it is already known, other than this: I do strenuously object to one segment of the population being targeted to foot the bill for this, when many of the children affected will have parents who smoke. It will not affect me...I do not smoke, never have. But I still do not think we should target one segment of the population to pay for expanding an entitlement...especially since a good number of the families involved are probably in that segment of the population. To me that is just wrong on a very basic level. They should figure out a way where the cost is more evenly distributed. I don't want my tax burden going up, but if they are going to force this, they should not lay it all at the smokers' feet.

Okay...off my soapbox. lol.
Two-way street not so equal?
Just my 2 cents... though it is definitely a 2-way street with both conservative and liberal radio talking heads (and others) make these comments about all kinds of stuff, including assassinations of either Bush or Obama... I do see a difference here - in that there are a large number of folks in this country who think Bush should be in prison, impeached, or at the very least, hasn't done our country a big favor with this war...with popularity at an all-time low... NOT that I'm saying he deserves to be assassinated, I'm not!!

But this talk of Obama being in danger - it is not because he has done something wrong, it is not because he is a hugely unpopular person (quite the contrary), and it is not because of his actions.... it is about the color of his skin. Racism. And, fear.

Thanks for listening to my 2 cents...
I would not walk across the street to see either one of them. nm
nm
Picking anyone up off the street........sm
In looking further into al-Marri's case, I see that he did have charges of credit card fraud and making false statements to the FBI (you just don't mess with those guys!) so apparently he was not held illegally. I don't see this setting a precedent for unjust arrests of American citizens just going about their business.

As to your second paragraph....ROFL!! Count your lucky stars!
Each brown place in the link takes you to a different article that supports this article...nm
x