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

After seeing that McCain rally yesterday I am...sm

Posted By: oldtimer on 2008-10-10
In Reply to: What is going to happen to these rabid republicans - when Obama wins?

beginning to get very worried that there may be retaliation in some way. Those people were over the top!


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

Yeah, and yesterday Harry Reid said if McCain...
didn't support the fix it wouldn't pass. He wanted his support yesterday, today he doesn't. Harry Reid is a joke.
Rally
Why is it when someone tells you that you would rather go to a campaign and hear the issues, and what the candidates plan for the future of the country, that we are spewing hatred, fear and smear tactics. That is absolutely ludicrous what you have said, and you really need to watch what you say. I was saying that I personally want to go and hear the candidates tell me what they are going to do to help this country. I don't need a rock concert to "fog the issues." A brilliant campaign? A brilliant campaign of hope because he had Bruce S. A brilliant campaign because he has a free rock concert to get you there? I guess my values are totally different, but I never said anything in hatred. Why is it when truths are pointed out to you that you don't want to hear it, and discount it because you don't agree? I have been through many things and have seen a lot. Don't cry to anyone when you cannot afford your utilities, get a loan or anything because you did not want to have your life bubble burst. Just thoughts on the matter. You are the only one who can make yourself happy NOT anyone else. Just think about it that is all. I wish you no ill will nor your candidate. I just think I have a right to my opinon, but then I guess I don't because you might get offended.
Yes, if you look at the pictures of the rally.....
that sign WAS pretty prominent...along with others with various other epithets. What, pray tell, does that have to do with a *peace* rally? What does vandalizing govt property have to do with a *peace* rally? In my opinion, it seriously undermines the credibility of said *peace* rally.
Palin rally in PA
Palin is speaking in Latrobe, PA.  She is being heckled from the audience...people yelling "You are an a**hole."  Her kids are there on stage in their costumes for goodness sakes!
Great Rally
I was a great rally in Canton, Ohio ... Sarah and Todd Palen. They did not have Bruce Springsteen (thank goodness). They don't need hipe to tell people what the country knows we need. They don't have to "entertain people" to get them to vote for the right person for the highest job in the land.
A candidate that knows how to rally? I don't want a candidate to rally!!!!! I want a candidate to speak of the things they stand for, and their values, and what they plan to do in the White House. If I cannot "rally" in my own heart, and my own values, then no one can do that for me...

A great rally is one that starts at home, and shows up in our lives and the way we vote. Not a place where all you hear is guitars and sound machines. Too bad they have have to go to extremes like that to "tease people" into voting for them.


chicago rally
Maybe Oprah will show up.
he was *detained* during a protest rally...
for the moment - but they have been after Gary for decades - I recently saw him on Bill Maher explaining it all....GREAT GUY by the way, Gary....
I don't hear anyone at an Obama rally saying ...sm
John McCain is a traitor and that he should be killed. This is very scary to most Americans that hear it, very radical to wish a presidential candidate dead! Neither one blinked an eye when supporters shouted these things out.
Did you see the big rally against Palin in Alaska? sm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNlcYaEOLRM


Excellent speech at Pentagon Rally sm

I do not care what anyone says about this woman, I think she is great.  


 


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G3eq-I7CzM


You must be referring to the Scranton rally (2nd report).
very much under investigation. By the way, did you forget to post the link? I don't see it here.
U.S. Troops Secured Baghdad Rally for Hezbollah...sm
So our troops are in Iraq securing an anti-American rally. Can someone shed some logic on this whole thing?

------------------------------------------------
U.S. Troops Secured Baghdad Rally for Hezbollah

U.S. troops provided some of the security for the rally in Baghdad today where thousands of Iraqi Shiites demonstrated for Hezbollah:

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr summoned his followers around the country to attend a mass rally today in the city's Sadr City district in support of the Shiite militants of Hezbollah battling Israeli troops in southern Lebanon.

Iraqi government television said the Defense Ministry had approved the demonstration, a sign of the public anger over Israel's offensive in Lebanon and of al-Sadr's stature as a major player in Iraqi politics.

Crowds of young men began arriving in eastern Baghdad's Sadr City late Thursday and were housed in mosques and Shiite community centers. U.S. Army vehicles guarded approaches to the slum to prevent clashes between Shiite and Sunni extremists.

Dressed in white shrouds to indicate their willingness to die for the cause, demonstrators waved Hezbollah flags and chanted death to Israel and death to America:

I consider my participation in this rally a religious duty. I am proud to join this crowd and I am ready to die for the sake of Lebanon, said Khazim al-Ibadi, 40, a government employee from Hillah.

Al-Sadr followers painted U.S. and Israeli flags on the main road leading to the rally site, and demonstrators stepped on them with relish. Alongside the painted flags was written: These are the terrorists.

So the U.S. is simultaneously supplying bombs to Israel for use against Hezbollah; encouraging a ceasefire to stop the bombing; working with Sunni Arab states who fear a Shiite alliance across Iran, Iraq and Lebanon; propping up a Shiite-dominated Iraqi government; and protecting Iraqis eager to join Hezbollah and wipe Israel off the map.

No matter which side you've taken in the Middle East, America is on your side.
You go girl - 60,000 people attend her rally in Florida

Not bad for a town whose population is 70,000 people.


http://news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080921/NEWS0107/80921022


 


 


 


 


Guess that 1-day stock market rally didn't exactly
x
From innocent pub plant in a rally to podium sidekick
put himself out there. For some, Joe is the everyman's man...for other's, the everyman's sham, and the spectator's seem to be fairly equally splint on that impression of him. No sympathy for the plant. Beating your gms and getting all exercised over this is a waste of time and isn't going to clean up the mess McC made with Joe the unlicensed. BTW, when getting all outraged over Joe's invasion of privacy, let's don't forget McCain's hand in that one, OK?
Stupid is planting a question at a rally designed
believing that the transparency of it all would escape the notice of the nation's voters. This is a classic case of McCain and his supporters underestimating the intelligence of te electorate they are so diligently trying to capture.
Honey, a plant in the RALLY to yell those alleged things...nm
//
Like your no-class group that shouted "Kill Him" regarding O at a GOP rally? With Palin? or
don't you remember that? Bunch of hypocrites - you guys dish it but you sure don't like to take it.
I just spun the news channels and oops, what happened with the rally?
Started out on MSNBC and that was showing DNC pressures Norm Coleman , CNN showing ASU official stating "We Blew it", Prime News is showing about an 11 year old that committed suicide, so only on Fox actually now at 5:43 EST that is exactly what is on. My news channels here in Atlanta only showed probably about 5 minutes and then went on to important news.
Thanks to you both; yesterday's
it was time to come out of anonymity so we can better identify the trolls in order to ignore them. So thanks to Democrat for making the case.
Actually, I think that is what JM did say yesterday. nml
.
Yesterday's interview on

Matt Cooper pretty much spelled it out.  You might not like it, though, because it still holds your boys accountable for their actions.  So by all means, read at your own risk.


MSNBC.com


Transcript for July 17
Matt Cooper, John Podesta, Ken Mehlman, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein


NBC News


Updated: 1:57 p.m. ET July 17, 2005


PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."


Sunday, July 17, 2005


GUESTS: Matt Cooper, White House Correspondent, Time Magazine; John Podesta, President and CEO, "Center for American Progress" and Former Chief of Staff, President Bill Clinton; Ken Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee; Bob Woodward, Washington Post and author, "The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat" and Carl Bernstein, former Washington Post Watergate Reporter


MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert, NBC News


MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: the investigation into the leak which identified Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. This Time magazine reporter says his source released him from his pledge of confidentiality, allowing him to avoid jail by testifying on Wednesday. What did he say to the grand jury? He'll discuss it for the first here this morning. Our guest: Matt Cooper.


Then Newsweek magazine quotes Karl Rove as saying it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency, who authorized the trip." What now for President Bush's deputy chief of staff? With us, Rove's former deputy, now chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, and President Clinton's former chief of staff, John Podesta.


And 33 years ago, another famous source, Deep Throat, provided information which brought about the resignation of Richard M. Nixon. His identity has now been revealed and his story now chronicled in a new book: "The Secret Man." With us, Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.


But, first, joining us now is Matt Cooper of Time magazine. Welcome.


MR. MATT COOPER: Morning, Tim.


MR. RUSSERT: This is the cover of your magazine: "Rove on the Spot," subtitled "What I Told the Grand Jury," by Matthew Cooper. And here is an excerpt from your article, which will be available tomorrow in Time magazine.


"So did [Karl] Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him?"--to Niger. "Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the `agency' on `WMD'?"--weapons of mass destruction. "Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know."


For the record, the first time you learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove?


MR. COOPER: That's correct.


MR. RUSSERT: And when Karl concluded his conversation with you, you write he said, "I've already said too much." What did that mean?


MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure what it meant, Tim. At first, you know, I thought maybe he meant "I've been indiscreet." But then, as I thought about it, I thought it might be just more benign, like "I've said too much; I've got to get to a meeting." I don't know exactly what he meant, but I do know that memory of that line has stayed in my head for two years.


MR. RUSSERT: When you were told that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, did you have any sense then that this is important or "I better be careful about identifying someone who works for the CIA"?


MR. COOPER: Well, I certainly thought it was important. I wrote it in the e-mail to my bosses moments later that has since leaked out after this long court battle I've been in. You know, I certainly thought it was important. But I didn't know her name at the time until, you know, after Bob Novak's column came out.


MR. RUSSERT: Did you have any reluctance writing something so important?


MR. COOPER: Well, I wrote it after Bob Novak's column had come out and identified her, so I was not in, you know, danger of outing her the way he did.


MR. RUSSERT: You also write in Time magazine this week, "This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversation with [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a special waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recorded an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew"--of--"or played any role the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."


Did you interpret that as a confirmation?


MR. COOPER: I did, yeah.


MR. RUSSERT: Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?


MR. COOPER: No, he didn't say that.


MR. RUSSERT: But you said it to him?


MR. COOPER: I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.


MR. RUSSERT: And that she worked for the CIA?


MR. COOPER: I believe so.


MR. RUSSERT: The piece that you finally ran in Time magazine on July 17th, it says, "And some government officials have noted to Time in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger..."


"Some government officials"--That is Rove and Libby?


MR. COOPER: Yes, those were among the sources for that, yeah.


MR. RUSSERT: Are there more?


MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into it, but it's possible.


MR. RUSSERT: Have you told the grand jury about that?


MR. COOPER: The grand jury knows what I know, yes.


MR. RUSSERT: That there may have been more sources?


MR. COOPER: Yes.


MR. RUSSERT: The big discussion, Matt Cooper, has been about your willingness to testify...


MR. COOPER: Sure.


MR. RUSSERT: ...before the grand jury. And let's go through that. This was Wednesday, July 6, Matt Cooper talking to the assembled press corps.


(Videotape, July 6, 2005):


MR. COOPER: This morning, in what can only be described as a stunning set of developments, that source agreed to give me a specific, personal and unambiguous waiver to speak before the grand jury.


(End videotape)


MR. RUSSERT: Now, Karl Rove's attorney has spoken to The Washington Post. "[Karl Rove's attorney, Robert] Luskin has said that he merely reaffirmed the blanket waiver by Rove ...and that the assurance would have been available at any time. He said that [Matt] Cooper's description of last-minute theatrics `does not look so good' and that `it just looks to me like there was less a desire to protect a source.'"


MR. COOPER: Well, can I back up a little bit, Tim? For two years, you know, I have protected the identity of my sources. As you know, I was in a rather infamous court battle that went through all the courts in Washington, right up to the Supreme Court, and we lost there with a special prosecutor trying to get me to disclose my source. My principle the whole time was that no court and no corporation can release me from a pledge of confidentiality with my source. And so even after Time magazine, over my objections, handed over my notes and e-mails, which included, really, everything I had and identified all my sources, I still believed that I needed some kind of personal release from the source himself.


And so on the morning of that clip you just saw, my lawyer called me and had seen in The Wall Street Journal that morning Mr. Rove's lawyer saying, "Karl does not stand by any confidentiality with these conversations," or words to that effect, and then went on to say, "If Matt Cooper's going to jail, it's not for Karl Rove." And at that point, at that point only, my lawyer contacted Mr. Rove's lawyer and said, you know, "Can we get a kind of personal waiver that applies to Matt?" And Mr. Luskin and he worked out an agreement and we have a letter that says that "Mr. Rove waives confidentiality for conversations with Matt Cooper in July 2003." So it's specific to me and it's personal, and that's why I felt comfortable, only at that point, going to testify before the grand jury. And once I testified before the grand jury, then I felt I should share that with the readers of Time.


MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Luskin, Rove's attorney, is suggesting that you had the same waiver throughout the last two years, and only when you were confronted with going to jail did you, in effect, decide to compromise your source or not protect your source.


MR. COOPER: Well, I protected my source all along. I don't maintain that I haven't. I have all the way along, and that's why we went to the Supreme Court. That's why I stood by the source even after Time had disclosed my documents. We went to Rove only after seeing his lawyer, in some sense, invite us to, in that quote in The Wall Street Journal. My lawyers and the editors at the time did not feel it was appropriate for me to go and approach Rove about some kind of waiver before then.


MR. RUSSERT: In your piece, as I mentioned, you said "some government officials," and you said it may be more than just Rove and Libby. Did you get waivers from those additional sources when you testified before the grand jury?


MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into anything else, but I don't--anything I discuss before the grand jury, I have a waiver for.


MR. RUSSERT: Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief...


MR. COOPER: Sure.


MR. RUSSERT: ...of Time magazine, authorized the release of your e-mails and notes to the prosecutor. Pearlstine said this: "I found myself really coming to the conclusion that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do." Do you agree?


MR. COOPER: In part. I mean, I think Norman Pearlstine made a very tough decision. I spent a lot of time with him and I admired the way he made it. I disagreed. I thought we should have at least, you know, gone forward, gone into civil contempt. I would have been willing to go to jail. I think we should have, you know, held on a little longer, but that's a reasonable, you know, disagreement between people.


MR. RUSSERT: Now, he came to Washington, Pearlstine, and some other editors from New Work and met with the Washington bureau of Time magazine.


MR. COOPER: Sure.


MR. RUSSERT: At least two correspondents produced e-mails saying, "Our sources are now telling us they will no longer confide in Time magazine. They will no longer trust us to protect our sources." Is that going to be a long-term problem for your magazine?


MR. COOPER: Well, I think, you know, Time will have to, you know, reassure confidential sources that we're going to continue to rely on them and continue to protect them. You know, this--Tim, I think the important thing is here that one aberration in this case was it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and it was then--you know, Time did decide in this case to turn over the notes. Now, Pearlstine has said that in other cases he might not. I think the important thing to remember here is that, you know, the reporters of Time will keep their word. I kept my word for two years. I didn't feel like any court or corporation could release me from that confidence, and I kept my word and so only spoke with the grand jury after I received that written personal waiver from my source.


MR. RUSSERT: You are going to testify this week before Congress for a shield law. Explain that.


MR. COOPER: Sure . Well, Tim, you know, this is the 12th day, I believe, of my colleague Judith Miller from The New York Times being in jail in this investigation because she did not get a waiver that she feels comfortable with and she's protecting her sources. There's incredible aberration, Tim. Forty- nine states have some kind of protection for journalists and their confidential sources, but there is no protection at the federal level. And so in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats have put forward legislation in Congress to create some kind of protection for whistle-blowers and confidential sources and other people who want to come forward to the press so there'd be some kind of federal law, too.


MR. RUSSERT: What's your biggest regret in this whole matter?


MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure I have that many. I mean, I believe the story I wrote was entirely accurate and fair, and I stand by it. And I think it was important because it was about an important thing that was going on. It was called A War on Wilson, and I believe there was something like a war on Wilson going on. I guess I'd be a little more discreet about my e-mails, I think. I'm an object lesson in that, you know, e-mails have a way of getting out.


MR. RUSSERT: Will this affect your career as a journalist?


MR. COOPER: I don't think it should, Tim. I kept my word to my source. I only spoke after I got a waiver from that source. That's what other journalists have done in this case. I don't think it should.


MR. RUSSERT: How did you find the grand jury?


MR. COOPER: I was surprised, Tim. You know, I'd heard this old line that grand jurors are very passive, that they'll indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor tells them. I thought this grand jury was very interested in the case. They--a lot of the questions I answered were posed by them as opposed to the prosecutor. I thought they were very involved.


MR. RUSSERT: Where do you think it's heading?


MR. COOPER: You know, I really don't know, Tim. I've been, you know, involved in this case as anyone, I guess, for a couple of years now, and at times I think it's a very big case, at times I think it's, you know, politics as usual and not going to be that big a case at all. I just don't know.


MR. RUSSERT: And we'll find out. Matt Cooper, we thank you very much for joining us and sharing your views.


MR. COOPER: Thank you, Tim.


I saw him on CNN yesterday. Here's the video.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Seymour_Hersh__U.S._involved_in_0813.html


I found it very interesting, and you're right, he's yet to get it wrong.


Until yesterday, I never saw you post here at all. sm
The moderator has posted several times that as long as the posts remain respectful, we may cross post.  Not all liberals, by the way, believe in abortion.  This is an ethical issue, not a political one, though it does seem that the liberals fly the abortion banner high and proud. 
I saw this yesterday . Wonder if Fox will broadcast this?
zz
check yesterday.
nm
it was on woldnetdaily yesterday & others
Not that y'all would know anything about sources other than MSLSD and the gang.
Yesterday's news.
su
I'm not sure where it is, but one of your friends from yesterday
kept bugging Debbie about it. Maybe she knows where the rule is.

I think it used to be that we were asked to post links, so as to save disk space for the MTStars website, something like that.

That way, we can click over to read what is posted. Also, it gives you backup to your posts for verfication. Much better to see who's point of view it is, and from what website in your link.

Does anybody know if this rule still exists under the new management??
Wow, I posted this yesterday and...
Today there are no comments? Fascinating. I thought surely someone would leap to McCain's defense and/or find a way to justify his behavior.
We were talking about this yesterday...sm
....and thinking it will take years to implement, but still.....we should all be preparing for a career change eventually. I have by branching out into general transcription.


Ain't change grand....I'm wondering exactly whose job(s) it's going to save...


Thanks sam - was just thinking about you yesterday
We miss you here. We need people to post with knowledge and sanity (and links that back up things they say). All I'm reading are nasty hate-filled posts and its quite nauseating. Especially when they don't have facts.
O'Reilly yesterday
Did you see O'Reilly yesterday, it was hysterical watching Joys face and hand motions
There were rumors yesterday
that there was a fight of some kind after the show with Elizaeth and Joy. They said today it wasn't true. When Whoopie was talking about off-shore drilling, Joy made a disgusting remark about Palin's pregnant daughter and drilling.
As I posted yesterday -
Obama did not change his numbers to 120,000 - it was clearly a misspeak on the part of that Richardson guy, as earlier in the day he had said it correctly on a radio show.

Show me 1 person in this world who has not misspoke at some point in their life...
As of yesterday, Chrysler and GM were still
Today's news about cash flow evidently took that off the table pronto.
The EC voted yesterday......... sm
but those votes will not be counted until 1/6/2009 when both houses will convene to certify the votes. One can only hope and pray that there is still at least 1 Senator and 1 Representative with the intestinal fortitude to challenge that certification should it go in favor of Obama.

Just a side note. I was in a bookstore yesterday browsing the books when I came across a book cover designed to look like Time magazine with Obama's picture and the caption President Obama. How's that for audacity?
Thank you for the link!! Why just yesterday.....
The families were kicked off the white house grounds and they all hated Obama and............where do they get this shtik?
More from yesterday's debate

McCain:  This is not a bipartisan agreement. This is three Members of the Senate--none on the House side--who have joined Democrats for a partisan agreement. It is unfortunate that has happened because we are now committing an act of generational theft. We are robbing future generations of Americans of their hard-earned dollars because we are laying on them a debt of incredible proportions. We have already amassed over a $10 trillion debt. Apparently, we will pass this legislation, which is another, when you count the interest, about $1.1 trillion dollars.


   The House is about to take up a $400 billion Omnibus appropriations bill. It has been put off until tomorrow, probably wisely. The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Geithner, is going to recommend somewhere around $ 1/2 trillion to $1 trillion for another TARP package. So we are talking about trillions of dollars.


   This morning, one of my colleagues, the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, said: ``Why quibble over $200 million?''


   I am not sure the American people would agree.


   What has been the result of this compromise? Ten out of hundreds eliminated items: $34 million to renovate the Commerce Department; $100 million for government-wide supercomputers; $14 million for cyber security; $55 million for historic preservation; $20 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs; $5.8 billion for prevention wellness programs, $870 million for pandemic flu; $16 million for school improvement programs, construction; $3.5 billion for higher education facilities; $2.25 billion for a neighborhood stabilization program. Ten have been eliminated from the hundreds which totals $12.6 billion of the $140 billion being touted as having been cut from the more than $900 billion bill. What we have done is, we have eliminated 10 items, reduced others, which will probably be restored, reaching basically the same level, a ``compromise'' of about $827 billion which is a little more than that passed by the House of Representatives. The total is over a trillion dollars.


   Both the distinguished majority leader and the Senator from Montana have emphasized the need for speed, that we have to act quickly, right away. We will, I am sure, because a seminal moment was when the two or three Republican Senators announced they would vote for this package. So it is a matter of time.


   Last week, the overseer of TARP I announced there had been $76 billion wasted in paying for assets over their actual value. We acted in speed, with haste, and it cost the taxpayers $76 billion.


   Again, this is an unusual circumstance we are in. These circumstances we all appreciate. We appreciate the fact that millions of Americans are without a job, without health insurance, without the ability to educate themselves and their children, and without the ability to stay in their homes. We need to act. We need to act responsibly.


   It is being said that every economist says we need to adopt this package. That is not true. I even hear one of my advisers during the campaign, Marty Feldstein's name, being mentioned as being for this package.  


The Washington Post op-ed is entitled ``An $800 Billion Mistake.'' Martin Feldstein and many other economists believe this is an $800 billion mistake.  


   On the spending side, the stimulus package is full of well-intended items that, unfortunately, are not likely to do much for employment. Computerizing the medical records of every American over the next 5 years is desirable, but it is not a cost-effective way to create jobs. Has anyone gone through the long list of proposed appropriations and asked how many jobs each would create per dollar of increased national debt?


   Well, since Mr. Feldstein wrote that column, the Congressional Budget Office did, indeed, go through the list. They found out it would increase between now and the bill then, which has been changed somewhat but basically will end up over a trillion dollars, it says it would increase employment at that point in time by 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs. At $885 billion, 1.3 million jobs would work out to $680,769 per job. And at 3.9 million jobs, the cost would be $226,923 per job.


   Several of my colleagues have celebrated the reduced cost of the compromise from $885 billion to $827 billion. So let's do the math for that amount. It is only $636,154 per job for 1.3 million jobs, and $212,000 for 3.9 million jobs created. If you add the cost of interest to the total for the compromise, we have $1.175 trillion.


   There are numerous policy changes which have nothing to do with jobs in this bill. This legislation was delivered to our office at 11 o'clock on Saturday night. My staff has been hard at work scrubbing this bill, 778 pages, I believe, for the changes. One of them that is very interesting, which has been added, is a new, far-reaching policy with respect to unemployment compensation. Specifically, the title is Unemployment Compensation Moderation. It would allow a person to collect unemployment insurance for leaving his or her job to take care of an immediate family member's illness, any illness or disability as defined by the Secretary of Labor. This was originally sponsored legislation in the 110th Congress and did not succeed. Each State would need to amend their unemployment insurance in order to receive $7 billion in funds.


   Again, that may be a laudable goal to fundamentally change unemployment compensation. What in the world is it doing on what is supposed to be an economic stimulus package?


 This is neither bipartisan nor is it a compromise. It is generational theft, because we rejected a proposal on this side to establish a trigger that when our economy improves, we would be on a path to a balanced budget and reducing spending. These spending programs will remain with no way of paying for them. What are we doing to future generations of Americans? We need a stimulus package. We need to create jobs. We certainly don't need to lay a multitrillion dollar debt on future generations of Americans, once our economy has improved.


How they voted yesterday.

 


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00061


I just heard yesterday that
Obama is cutting back funding for hydrogen technology on cars.  WHAT!?  GM is supposed to have a hydrogen car come out in the next 2-3 years and now Obama is cutting funding.  I would much rather have a hydrogen car than a hybrid that you have to plug in.  If everyone has a car they have to plug in, we don't have a big enough power grid for all that electricity and where does our electricity come from....duh!!!  The exhaust from a hydrogen vehicle is water.  I just don't understand this admininstrations thinking.  I mean...if they want to go green, why are they cutting back funding for technology that will really cause us to go green eventually at least in the car industry?  I'd much rather explore hydrogen than ethanol vehicles.  Can you imagine how much corn will cost if we all drive ethanol vehicles....or how much it will cost for farmers to feed their animals if corn is scarce because we are all using it for our vehicles.  Ethanol is not the way to go.  You don't take a food source and use it for fuel.  Like I said above, we don't have a big enough electric grid to handle everyone if we all had to plug in our electric cars.  I just think it is ignorant to cut back on hydrogen vehicles.
I just heard yesterday that
Obama is cutting back funding for hydrogen technology on cars.  WHAT!?  GM is supposed to have a hydrogen car come out in the next 2-3 years and now Obama is cutting funding.  I would much rather have a hydrogen car than a hybrid that you have to plug in.  If everyone has a car they have to plug in, we don't have a big enough power grid for all that electricity and where does our electricity come from....duh!!!  The exhaust from a hydrogen vehicle is water.  I just don't understand this admininstrations thinking.  I mean...if they want to go green, why are they cutting back funding for technology that will really cause us to go green eventually at least in the car industry?  I'd much rather explore hydrogen than ethanol vehicles.  Can you imagine how much corn will cost if we all drive ethanol vehicles....or how much it will cost for farmers to feed their animals if corn is scarce because we are all using it for our vehicles.  Ethanol is not the way to go.  You don't take a food source and use it for fuel.  Like I said above, we don't have a big enough electric grid to handle everyone if we all had to plug in our electric cars.  I just think it is ignorant to cut back on hydrogen vehicles.
I saw that yesterday and Beck actually
looked like the clown here. He was caught dead-handed with stretching the truth- he did go over to Fox, is that not right? Anyway, he told some big ones on his radio show, they had tape and Barbara and Whoopi both called him on the carpet. Barbara asked him did he not check his facts before throwing them out. He does work for Fox now, correct? I loved when Whoopi talked about that big pile.... Priceless.
This was reported on none other than Fox News yesterday.
I'd say if she's camping out in front of his house what would it hurt to peek his head out and talk with the woman? But then again, he probably has nothing to say other than, "We're making progress. War is hard."

She's obviously had time and enough grief to set in to do a 360. You know people handle grief differently.

I think he doesn't want to talk to her now because she's upset, and Bush does not do well in face-to-face adversial situations, so he probably wouldn't be able to help her by talking to her anyway.


Yesterday's cartoon collection
from Bob Geiger's site.
The site was launched yesterday am. There are currently
the ones that have been deemed inappropriate. They are still there, so nothing disappears. I have not had enough time to research precisely what "removal" means, but I am guessing it means that once the nays outstrip the yays by substantial margins, they are simply no longer up for rating, ranking or votes (whatever).

If you take the time to verify the content of the link you posted and actually inspect the site, it will become crystal clear WHY these questions are voted off and furthermore, how much more interest there is in actual issues on this site as opposed to scandal and smear.
The site was launched yesterday am. There are currently
the ones that have been deemed inappropriate. They are still there, so nothing disappears. I have not had enough time to research precisely what "removal" means, but I am guessing it means that once the nays outstrip the yays by substantial margins, they are simply no longer up for rating, ranking or votes (whatever).

If you take the time to verify the content of the link you posted and actually inspect the site, it will become crystal clear WHY these questions are voted off and furthermore, how much more interest there is in actual issues on this site as opposed to scandal and smear.
The latest one yesterday was from the chairman of...
the Democratic party of South Carolina. Hardly a "crazy."

That being said...it does happen on both sides. However, in being totally objective in looking at this board, the Democrats on this board are just as likely to attack the poster as they are to attack the candidate. That doesn't help. What happens on this board is exactly what happens in Washington and it just needs to stop. Congress and the administration need to drop the party line and do the people's business, not further their careers. It should be about SERVICE. Only one ticket is saying that. Only one ticket is eve interested in reaching across party lines and involving the other party and Independents in their cabinet. That is the ticket I am voting for...because until the party bickering first and country second ideology changes...we are doomed to loop the same old same old. It just needs to stop.
Why didn't you post this yesterday?
Or the day before? Didn't feel the love until Obama got elected?
The Spheris CEO quit yesterday, too.
x
I heard on the news day before yesterday...sm
that Obama got a video from the second in command of AL Quada (I don't know how that is spelled.).  He warned him about sending troops to Afganistan.  Also is said to have called him the "N" word.  Did anyone hear what Obama's reaction to this message was?  I never did hear anything else.