How many of you would leave your 4-month-old special-needs baby to run for VP? nm
Posted By: CG on 2008-08-30
In Reply to:
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
as a mother I would not subject my baby, or anyone's baby
to that type of situation. but then again, I am not the kind of mother who agrees with the village raising the child, or whatever Hillary used to say. to me the child's safety would come first above and beyond what I was doing, and I would not expose the baby to all that. that is just me.
mostly I am talking about at the end of her speech when the baby was being passed around and then she eventually grabbed him, half paying attention to him.
it is my opinion but I found it a little troubling and my heart kind of went out to that little baby.
One month -- (sm)
That would be about the time we get a president and staff in there who actually know what to do.
About a month ago
I posted a link to the following OpEd article, which I was touting as the best idea I'd heard yet to resolve the economic crisis:
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 12/27/08:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout
by Steven Leser Page 1 of 1 page(s)
www.opednews.com
5
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
The economic disaster that I predicted back in April of 2008 in these articles click here and here is here. What enabled me to predict what was coming was my evaluation of five key areas of the economy. They are:
1. Consumer savings and spending/ability to spend
2. Corporate income, health and spending/ability to spend
3. Government financial health and ability to spend
4. The lending and banking (and financial) system and its ability to extend credit
5. Inflation & scarcity of resources
I made the point that for the first time in American history, all five of these areas were problematic.
Looking at the same indicators now, eight months later, there are some real and some apparent changes. Number 4 - The lending, banking and financial system has been bailed out, but it is still reeling from the Lehman brothers’ bankruptcy, several bank failures, and the threatened failures or near failures of several more institutions. On the surface, Number 5, Inflation & scarcity of resources seems have improved. Indeed several news reports have suggested that Deflation is what is now the concern. This is an illusion.
The two main commodities driving up prices were energy and food, both because of supply fears. Both have come down in price/cost somewhat, energy in particular, but WHY have they come down in price. Is there suddenly more supply? No, there is no more supply. They are down due to a temporary decrease in demand. As soon as there is the beginning of a return to economic normalcy, and people start to use the additional income to consume, the price increases in both food and energy will return. The governments of the world should take NO action to try to deal with the apparent but temporary deflationary conditions.
Having stabilized the financial system and the auto industry with bailouts, the government should turn to the most critical economic issue, the one that really is threatening to make this a prolonged downturn and that is consumer savings, huge consumer debt and resulting inability for consumers and households to spend and buy goods and services. Businesses cannot survive without the consumer and yet the average household is completely broke and drowning in debt.
I conceived the idea for this article about a week ago and was dreading having to perform the requisite research into the actual numbers supporting my positions. Thankfully, another author on OpEdNews, James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled “The Great Consumer Crash of 2009.” Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.
This suggests several conclusions. First, as I said earlier, the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that. It's a slight alteration of the old Sherlock Holmes quote, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”. Turning the economy around with a broke consumer is impossible, so what remains? Bail out the consumer.
What would a Government Bailout of the Consumer Look Like?
The government bailout of the consumer that I am proposing dwarfs all other government bailouts to date. It probably is the largest government spending initiative by any measurement in the history of humankind. It involves the government offering to each consumer and household to pay all of their debt. In exchange, the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. Let me illustrate:
Joe and Sally have a combined income of $100,000 per year. They have $60,000 in debt. They opt for a complete bailout of their debt. In return, they will pay an additional (60 x .125)% or an additional 7% in taxes for three years. So, the Government pays out $60,000, the government gets back $21,000 over three years (7% of Joe and Sally's $100,000 a year income or $7000 for three years), and Joe and Sally are debt free.
Another example is John. John makes $60,000 per year and has a mortgage of $150,000 and other debt of $8,000 of which $6,000 is taxes and $2000 is credit cards. John opts for the total bailout. The Government pays $158,000 and wipes out John's debt. John owes the government $7,500 additional in taxes each year for three years, or $22,500. Even though the Government paid more to bail John out, the payback is capped at 12.5% in additional taxes per year for three years.
There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.
The total potential Government bailout outlay is the total of household debt or $15 Trillion Dollars. Actual bailout total will be lower because although many consumers would opt for this bailout, many others would not depending on each households circumstances, so the total amount that the Government would put out would be considerably less than $15 Trillion, but it would not surprise me to see the amount exceed $5-8 Trillion, financed by Government bonds. The Government would get a percentage of that back in the temporary additional taxes I proposed, probably between 20% and 30% over three years. So, assuming that the Government outlays $5 Trillion for the bailout, it would get back $1 to $1.5 Trillion.
What everyone should understand is that in exchange for the government spending that money, we would have an American consumer that was essentially out of debt and per the additional legislation would never again get in debt to the point that the indebtedness would endanger the whole country's economic health. Households would be able to spend money again, and all of those businesses that currently hold consumer debt accounts would receive a sudden and massive infusion of cash and would be paid for all of that debt. The totality of this program would result in a massive boost to the economy. Considering this, even the money that the Government would not receive back from consumers that it bailed out, it would likely receive back and more from the money that it injected into the economy generating business, income and retail taxes. Another great benefit of a consumer bailout is the mortgage crisis would be over. Households would own their homes free and clear and the banks would have been paid in full. Other organizations like Visa would be back in good financial health. Visa is currently hurting and requesting government assistance. Helping the consumer as I have outlined is the right way to help banks, business and the financial industry and the economy at large. Everyone wins this way.
I also posted a link to Part 2, posted in response to the many comments the author received on the first article:
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2
by Steven Leser Page 1 of 2 page(s)
www.opednews.com
3
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
The excellent responses, even harsh criticism from some to my first article on my proposed Consumer Bailout http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Real-Bailout-Needed-is-by-Steven-Leser-081227-715.html helped crystallize some of the finer points of the proposal. They also made me surer than ever that the best thing to do to bring about a recovery is to address bailout efforts to the consumer.
To recap briefly before I go on, I wrote:
... the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that....
the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. One of the more serious components of the current crisis that is just starting to become apparent is the catastrophic budget shortfalls in state and local budgets. Five to fifteen trillion dollars in additional taxable income for businesses all around the country would fix that portion of the crisis immediately as it seems to fix just about every other portion of the crisis. That is what I think is compelling about my bailout proposal. If you make a list of the problems in the economy and analyze the effect of this proposed consumer bailout, it eliminates them one by one from the bottom up...
There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.
Let me address some of the more important criticisms of the proposal:
Criticism 1 – This Consumer Bailout is not Affordable
Anytime you are talking about a government program costing in the trillions of dollars it is natural to have questions about how this program would be funded so these questions and criticisms are good and to be expected.
One thing that should be obvious is that those who would opt to have the government pay their debt would pay back on average between 20% and 30% of the money directly to the government in increased taxes over three years. That is part of the design of the bailout proposal.
Second, what happens with the money that is given by the government to consumer's creditors? Those creditors have to pay taxes on it. Whether the creditor is a bank, some other lending agency, Visa, or any other creditor, that business will pay taxes on that income. Let's assume a low average effective business tax rate of 25% to be conservative. Of the money lent to consumers, another 25% will be paid back to the government within one year in the form of taxes paid by creditors. Now we are up to 45%-55% of the total bailout being paid for by those who benefited most by it.
Third, what do the creditors do with the 75% of the money they receive that they do not have to pay in taxes? They invest it, they buy other goods and services, they pay salaries and other operating costs, pay back their own debt obligations, etc. Much of that also results in taxable income by those receiving this money. Let's assume that 2/3rds of that money, or 50% of the original outlay becomes additional taxable income. 25% of that (again, assuming an average effective business tax rate of 25% is 12.5% of the total bailout. Now we are up to 57.5% to 67.5% of the outlay by the federal government paid back to it in taxes. We can go another iteration and say that 50%-12.5% is 37.5% of the original outlay becomes taxable income for entities further down the road. We can say that 25% of that will probably end up being taxable income and results in another 6.25% of the original total outlay being paid back in taxes. Now we are up to 63.75% to 73.75% of the total bailout outlay being repaid.
Finally, what then happens to the economy when consumers are debt free, their former creditors are awash in cash, as a result Visa and the banks and lending industry are no longer in crisis, in fact the opposite? When there is more disposable income all around, more money is invested, lent (properly this time with the additional regulations I specified in place) and spent. We call that an expanding economy. What happens in an expanding economy? Federal income tax receipts grow. Some of that is already accounted for in my above explanations, but some isn't. I don't know if we get back to 100% of the bailout being paid back directly or indirectly, but if we don't, we get close.
Criticism 2 – This Bailout Proposal Penalizes People Who Have Kept Up With Their Bills
Of all the top criticisms, this one was the most difficult for me to understand. People who have kept up with their bills are still hurting in this economy. Their investments have suffered, they are at risk just like anyone else for layoffs, if they are small business owners, they might be getting less business or the people that owe them money may be having difficulty paying their bills. All of those things mean that no matter how thrifty you are, you are probably feeling ill effects from this economy or at the very least; the current crisis makes you more at risk to be hurt.
All of the people would benefit greatly from an economy that gets moving again. Those who do not request a bailout would not be financing those who do. This bailout is self-financing as I illustrated above.
Criticism 3 – This Bailout Encourages Bad Behavior
It definitely would encourage bad behavior if we don't include the additional legislation that I propose that specifies how much credit can be lent to a consumer based on his income. These limits are different depending on the type of debt that would be incurred. I'm guessing that total non-auto and non-mortgage credit would be such that the monthly payments could not exceed around 10% of monthly income of a household and total outstanding non-auto and non-mortgage debt could not exceed 5% of yearly household income. The legislation would also prevent lenders from charging exorbitant interest rates.
Criticism 4 – The New Legislation you propose that would Limit Creditors in How Much they can lend to Consumers is Unworkable
For people who earn almost all of their income from a straight salary, these limits are straightforward. For those whose income is commission based or dividend based or whose income is otherwise variable, or for those who have high net worth, there needs to be another section to the legislation that better deals with their circumstance. My suggestion would be that for people who have a net worth over $250K, they could have consumer debt up to 1/3rd of their net worth.
January 4, 2009 at 07:54:15
1 1 View Ratings | Rate It
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2
by Steven Leser Page 2 of 2 page(s)
www.opednews.com
3
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
Those with variable incomes and net worth below $250K should have their debt totals determined by the following
Take the mean and median of their last 48 months worth of income and apply the 10% consumer debt limit to whichever figure is smaller..
Criticism 5 – This Bailout Could Result in Inflationary issues, Perhaps Even Hyperinflation.
Inflation is a concern, but I believe the risks can be managed. The bailout would be financed by issuing more bonds and as I already wrote, would be almost completely paid back either directly or by its effects on the economy. This bailout would not be financed by printing money. The Fed would have to be involved and would probably have to raise interest rates concurrently to ward off inflation. If you listen today to the government, the fed and private groups, they are all saying we are in a dangerous Deflationary situation. I still think there are inflationary risks with food and energy if we start to consume in similar quantities as prior to the beginning of the current crisis, but as I said I think this can be managed..
Criticism 6 – This Bailout is Really a Bailout of the Banking/Lending/Consumer Finance Sector (or other hated group) and I don't want to Bail them Out.
It seems that everyone wants to punish someone and everyone forgets that if we set out to punish people instead of focusing on what is going to fix this economy, we all will end up suffering for it. Libertarians want to punish the households and consumers who borrowed too much, Progressives want to punish the banks and consumer finance industry, Republicans want to punish organized Labor. For the current crisis to happen it required mistakes by consumers/households, banks, credit card companies, those who provide the underlying securities and financing for banks and credit card companies (the bond market, etc) and the government for failing to oversee all of the above and take action when things trended the wrong way. Now is not the time to concentrate on blame and recriminations. In fact, my bailout proposal bails out everyone, which is one of the reasons it has been a lightning rod for criticism. Everyone's pet economic and ideological whipping boys are helped.
We need everyone to have a 'Jeffersonian Louisiana Purchase' moment. What I mean by that is you have Jefferson, who was in his time probably close to what a Libertarian is today and believed that the government only had a the smallest amount of powers, i.e. only those specifically outlined in the constitution and no more. He did not believe in the elastic clause, and he definitely did not believe what his ideological opposites did, that if the Constitution did not explicitly forbid the government from doing something, that the government could do it.
Jefferson was given an opportunity to purchase the Louisiana territory from France but the problem was that the Constitution did not explicitly give him the power to make that deal. Recognizing that the purchase would solve several strategic issues for the country, not to mention more than double its territory, Jefferson made the deal. The point of this long-winded anecdote is that we are in an emergency. Exigency dictates that we accept that we may need to look beyond what would normally be the boundaries of our ideology to resolve the situation
------------------------
What I did not hear from those who criticized the idea is any alternate solution that resolved the current crisis and certainly none that addressed the issue of the overwhelming number of US households drowning in debt. Indeed, those who criticized the idea of bailing out consumers never acknowledged the seriousness of the household debt situation. As I wrote in the first article:
James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled "The Great Consumer Crash of 2009." Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.
Before thinking about the economy in terms of the overwhelming debt of the average household, I thought that infrastructure spending was the best way to pull the economy out of crisis. The adding of jobs and putting people back to work that would be accomplished by infrastructure spending is great. This does not address the debt issues, however. The unemployed would then be able to pay their rent/mortgage and try to keep up with payments on whatever debt they have, but there will still be little of the spending that is needed to fuel a recovery. I think the infrastructure-spending plan alongside a consumer bailout is a good idea, but by itself, it is going to make very little difference. This economy is going nowhere if we fail to address household debt.
she must have her quota in for the month
x
I am pro-choice up the the end of 3rd month.
I am definitely against partial-birth abortion.
and don't forget the new *word of the month*
racist. They've added that since hurricane Katrina.
keep your head in the sand - a month ago
they are VERY_CLOSE, this is no black sheep in his family....
1000 bucks a month
That is a lot to pay for health insurance. There does need to be reform so that it is more affordable, I just don't see how mandatory coverage is going to do it.
They forgot about 9/11 about a month after it happened.
i pay off my cards EVERY month, living
x
Agree a lot; but can we consider that the President only in for a month??.....sm
I am not going back to partisan politics, I think there are going to have to be many changes and many "solutions" before this economy can evea start to turn around, I pray it is sooner rather than later, but President Obama really has been condemned by many before he could even finish saying the oath of office....there is a lot of thinking and work that has to be done.
I don't have a white history month, either, but I'm okay with that.
X
If we did have a white history month
we would be called racists.
It took spending 1-1/2 BILLION dollars a month...sm
over years on the war in Iraq to get us to this point, borrowing from other countries, the highest deficit ever, printing money by the government with no gold behind it to drive the value of our dollar down around the world. Nothing to do with the democrats. When Bush became president we had a huge surplus. Did you forget that?
Wow, spot on . . .10 billions dollars a month . . .
for that war. For what? OIL. That money could go a long way to making sure EVERYBODY had healthcare and dramatically speed up the process of developing alternative energy sources! Why can no one see how much sense this makes?
Chrysler closing all 30 plants for 1 month.
x
An IQ of 135 is nothing special? I bet you never took
an IQ test and if you did, your score is probably judging on the substance of your posts, I would guess below 90.
Average is 90.
Special rights
I don't believe any group of people should have special rights, but I certainly believe they should have equal rights. I do believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, be entitled to family health insurance coverage, etc. I am not sure what special rights homosexuals are looking for, other than fair treatment. If we continue to look at them as sinners, which I cannot believe God created a whole group of people and they are all sinners because they are homosexual, they will always be thought of as outcasts, as other races were (and still are) treated in this country.
Hopefully your children will never have to make the abortion decision, but I have learned to never say never. My best friend is the daughter of an Assembly of God minister, and she had an abortion at age 16. She has never told her parents to this day (24 years later).
Thanks, TLD. That is a very special video. (nm)
nm
Well aren't you just special then.
xx
We do think it is special. Everyone has access to...sm
affordable healthcare. We have one of the highest minimum wage rates, quite exceptional since we are a very rural state, and great support taxwise for small business. Please don't come here, you would not fit in.
You obviously have no idea just how special she is...(sm)
Whether you agree with her views or not, M is one of those people who deserve respect. From what I know of her, she is well-written, intelligent, can express her views logically, and has no problem with providing documentation/proof for any discussion. Pay attention, you may learn something from her posts.
And special rights for
the sexually confused.
It's 4 hours 15 minutes, an HBO special...sm
Yeah Spike Lee put it together.
You have to have special license from the state....
and it is done specifically to reduce the predator population where moose and caribou populations are in danger from too many predators in the area. It is not done for sport. It is done all over our western United States to reduce predator populations.
People don't want oil drilling to disturb the caribou, but don't mind large wolf populations taking them out? As far as hard to watch videos, have you ever seen a wolf pack attack a carbiou and devour it while it is still kicking? Not pretty.
This aerial hunting practice has been used for years, and while I would not engage in it, sometimes it is necessary to control predator populations. Environmentalists sometimes make a mistake in going overboard to protect predators, then when other species are endangered by the overpopulation, things like this become necessary.
Special about Obama's Neighbors on now
Hannity's America, FNC. It's on now, but will be repeated at 11PM (CST, I think).
Flame all you want, but can you refute it? Seriously?
I saw (but didn't read) a post in passing about Alaska and its meth labs. Shoot, I grew up in Nebraska, and back in the 70s it was totally out of control. Rural areas seem to be magnets for them, regardless of who's in office, so in my opinion neither party who is in control at this time or another can't and won't stop it. It's sad, but true.
HBO Special Hacking Democracy sm
Here is the link to the trailer for the HBO Special Hacking Democracy. There are also links up there to the whole thing (9 parts).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8O43LxV_Xw
Gosh: Hukabee had a special on TV
I'm sorry I missed it because I as out when his program was on. I saw the tail end. I'm sure it was interesting. If anyone knows of a link or something I can go to to see his whole program, please post a link. I'd really like to see what it was all about.
Not wearing any special, but my hubby
wants to bring a cooler with some cold ones in it in case there is a long line. LOL
There's a special on PBS tonight about Lincoln
The author stated Lincoln suspended the right of habeus corpus and the constitution to justify his causes....so maybe this is why O is following along those lines.
Hope it's not on late. I can't stay awake past 8:30 anymore. 
Who would Jesus Whack. Oh that's charming, just really special. nm
Yes! It's not the rich & special treatment that bothers me.
He made tougher laws for drug crimes. The rich will alwys get better treatment. Paris Hilton's special treatment doesn't scare me. She isn't putting people in jail for her same offense.
Inciting hatred is SP's special mission.
this endeavor. The more she does it, the lower those number falls. McCain is back in double-digit deficit territory again.
So I guess your okay with insulting special needs people
by calling Bush "retarded". Have you addressed the people on the other side to ask them to stop calling Bush retarded because of the lack of compassion for the people who really are special needs. My best friends brother was born with mental retardation (yes I know they use another word nowadays) but he gets offended when he hears people calling Bush retarded. But I guess your okay with that. Only on your side do you want it stopped.
You said it alright, there is ignorance in some posters.
I am not offended by any of it. You want to call Bush retarded fine (sure he's one fry short of a happy meal), you want to call people kool-aid drinkers that's fine too because they are. But you don't see me up here asking people to please stop and be nice to only one specific side.
The Jonestown tragedy (and yes it was a tragedy, just like Waco and Heavens gate and all these other cults), and I have great compassion. But that happened in 1978 - 30 years ago. Would be nice if you could use some other excuse to not want to hear people being told they are drinking the kool-aid.
By the way "drinking the kool-aid is not just specific to Jonestown. The saying "Do not drink the kool-aid" does, but the phrase "Having drunk the kool-aid" or "kool-aid drinkers" also means being a strong believer in a particular philosophy or mission - wholeheartedly or blindly believing in its virtues.
From Wikipedia - The expression also refers to the activities of the Merry Pranksters, a group of people associated with novelist Ken Kesey who, in the early 1960s, traveled around the United States and held events called "Acid Tests", where LSD-laced Kool-Aid was passed out to the public (LSD was legal in the U.S. until 1966). Those who drank the "Kool-Aid" passed the "Acid Test". "Drinking the Kool-Aid" in that context meant accepting the LSD drug culture, and the Pranksters' "turned on" point of view. These events were described in Tom Wolfe's 1968 classic "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test". However the expression is never used figuratively in the book, but only literally.
I do have to laugh at your last paragraph because you must realize that I too find myself "fortunate not to come into personal contact with people such as yourself" (whatever that means), but if it means you don't want to know me personally then I'd just say I feel the same way.
Compassion goes both ways.
My last suggestion then if you want to continue coming would be just to skip over the posts you don't like. I do that a lot and it saves on the frustrations. There are people of all cultures that come to this board and speak their minds (on both sides). Both sides insult the others and that's just the way life goes.
What about special rights for the 'morally confused?'
Talk about special privileges.
If you leave our board, I'll leave your board.
Thanks. Was going to mention there's a special "monitor" board for reports.
Hope it works!!
special assistant to reagan sees the picture clearly
Federal Failure in New Orleans
by Doug Bandow
_Doug Bandow_ (http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.html) , a former special
assistant to president Ronald Reagan
Is George W. Bush a serious person? It's not a question to ask lightly of a
decent man who holds the US presidency, an office worthy of respect. But it
must be asked.
No one anticipated the breach of the levees due to Hurricane Katrina, he
said, after being criticised for his administration's dilatory response to the
suffering in the city of New Orleans. A day later he told his director of
the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Michael Brown: Brownie,
you're doing a heck of a job.
Is Bush a serious person?
The most important duty at the moment obviously is to respond to the human
calamity, not engage in endless recriminations. But it is not clear that this
President and this administration are capable of doing what is necessary.
They must not be allowed to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe that has
occurred on their watch.
Take the President's remarkable assessment of his Government's performance.
As Katrina advanced on the Gulf coast, private analysts and government
officials warned about possible destruction of the levees and damage to the pumps.
A year ago, with Hurricane Ivan on the move - before veering away from the
Big Easy - city officials warned that thousands could die if the levees gave
way.
Afterwards the Natural Hazards Centre noted that a direct strike would have
caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the city
'bowl' with water. In 2001, Bush's FEMA cited a hurricane hit on New Orleans as
one of the three top possible disasters facing the US. No wonder that the
New Orleans Times-Picayune, its presses under water, editorialised: No one can
say they didn't see it coming.
Similarly, consider the President's belief that his appointee, Brown, has
been doing a great job. Brown declared on Thursday - the fourth day of flooding
in New Orleans - that the federal Government did not even know about the
convention centre people until today. Apparently people around the world knew
more than Brown. Does the head of FEMA not watch television, read a
newspaper, talk to an aide, check a website, or have any contact with anyone in the
real world? Which resident of New Orleans or Biloxi believes that Brown is
doing a heck of a job? Which person, in the US or elsewhere, watching the
horror on TV, is impressed with the administration's performance?
Indeed, in the midst of the firestorm of criticism, including by members of
his own party, the President allowed that the results are not acceptable.
But no one has been held accountable for anything. The administration set this
pattern long ago: it is constantly surprised and never accountable.
The point is not that Bush is to blame for everything. The Kyoto accord has
nothing to do with Katrina: Kyoto would have a negligible impact on global
temperatures even if the Europeans complied with it.
Nor have hurricanes become stronger and more frequent in recent decades.
Whether extra funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would have preserved the
levees is hardly certain and impossible to prove. Nor can the city and state
escape responsibility for inaction if they believed the system to be unsafe.
Excessive deployment of National Guard units in the administration's
unnecessary Iraq war limited the flexibility of the hardest-hit states and imposed
an extra burden on guard members who've recently returned from serving
overseas. But sufficient numbers of troops remained available elsewhere across the
US.
The real question is: Why did Washington take so long to mobilise them? The
administration underestimated the problem, failed to plan for the predictable
aftermath and refused to accept responsibility for its actions. Just as when
the President took the US and many of its allies into the Iraq war based on
false and distorted intelligence. Then the administration failed to prepare
for violent resistance in Iraq. The Pentagon did not provide American soldiers
with adequate quantities of body armour, armoured vehicles and other
equipment.
Contrary to administration expectations, new terrorist affiliates sprang up,
new terrorist recruits flooded Iraq and new terrorist attacks were launched
across the world, including against several friends of the US. In none of
these cases has anyone taken responsibility for anything.
Now Hurricane Katrina surprised a woefully ill-prepared administration.
President Bush and his officials failed in their most basic responsibility: to
maintain the peaceful social framework within which Americans normally live and
work together.
Bush initially responded to 9/11 with personal empathy and political
sensitivity. But his failures now overwhelm his successes. The administration's
continuing lack of accountability leaves it ill-equipped to meet equally serious
future challenges sure to face the US and the rest of the world.
This article originally appeared in the Australian on Sept. 5, 2005
Not worried. O's request for a special prosecutor to investigate
DOJ regarding the pub party's umpteenth chapter in dogging this group will undoubtedly uncover both sides to this story...can you say voter suppression? How about election results challenges ala 2000 and 2004? Third time isn't always the charm.
Texas supreme court affirms special rights for religion
The Texas state supreme court ruled unanimously on Friday that a town which had altered its zoning to ban two church-sponsored halfway houses in a residential neighborhood was in violation of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
That act, which was passed in 1999 and endorsed by then-Governor George W. Bush, affords greater legal protection to religious operations than to equivalent secular operations.
Under its provisions, cities have to prove that zoning regulations — like the one passed by the town of Sinton to ban jails and rehabs within 1000 feet of a home, school, or church — further a “compelling” interest, such as protecting public safety, and do not place a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion.
Town officials asserted that the zoning regulations placed no restrictions on worship or the practice of religion and were merely intended to protect the safety of residents. This position was upheld at the local and appeals court levels.
However, the all-Republican and generally conservative state supreme court agreed with Pastor Richard Barr’s claim that because the town of Sinton is so small, the regulation had the effect of excluding him from operating his “ministry” for parolees anywhere.
Barr’s case was argued by the conservative Liberty Legal Institute (LLI) and was also supported by the American Center for Law and Justice — founded by Pat Robertson — and by the ACLU.
LLI was involved several years ago in a widely-noted case against a Texas school district which its litigation director, Hiram Sasser, claimed had demonstrated “pervasive religious hostility” by banning the distribution at Christmas time of candy canes with a religious message.
According to Sasser, today’s decision “means that in zoning cases you have to give churches special treatment. … You have to have very special reasons for telling a church you can’t locate here and locate there. That’s going to be a touch burden for cities.”
“This is a home run,” Sasser proclaimed. ‘I think it will be a model for other states.”
McCain made tougher laws for drug crimes. It's not just rich and special treatment he is putting
nm
Right on, baby!
Cuz you know, the answer my friend (to all this brouhaha) is blowin' in the wind......
I'm heading out now for a lunch with my Harley-riding, beer-swigging, antique-collecting redneck friend. No kidding!! Strange things can happen in this big ole universe and that's just the way I like it. Actually, he quit drnking beer about 10 years ago, and quit riding the Harley after he went broke trying to sell antiques....but he's still pretty much of a redneck.
Thanks for helping me have a laugh and see some humor where I thought there was none!!
Except for the baby..............
Use the baby in WHAT way? If you want to know why
further than this board full of none other than women, most of whom I presume are MTs and therefore working mothers themselves!! How do you reconcile ripping someone down for being the very thing you are? By criticizing SP or Hillary or any other prominent woman figure who happens to be a mother, you are only applying the exact same things to yourselves, ladies. This has to be one of the most disgusting things I see on here. Take pot shots at her skills or work history, but how can you possibly rip on her for having a career and children? Do you want us all barefoot, pregnant, and waiting on Ward hand and foot again? Grow up. I, for one, am ashamed to be a woman and lumped in with such juvenile BS when I see this nonsense.
I didn't care for Hillary, but I still hailed the fact that she was campaigning. It meant maybe women are finally gaining recognition and respect. Want to know why our wages are less than men's and why every time women make one step forward, they take 2 steps back? It's because the very gender prominent women hope to elevate will attack those women out of jealousy or worse yet, because they don't happen to ascribe to their own set of beliefs. It makes the whole lot of us look petty and ridiculous.
There's a saying, it's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it to the world.
Welcome baby!
I didn't know there was such a thing!
what about the baby's
x
okay what about the baby?
Yes, I do believe you should be able to do whatever you decide to your own body so long as others are not endangered in the process.
Well what about baby? Baby isnt endangered in the process. I would called being killed endangered. But I guess you are saying that it isnt a baby yet. I dont get that. A tadpole doesnt look like a frog but it is still a living thing. It just hasnt matured. A caterpillar isnt a butterfly but it is still alive, it just hasnt matured. So a fetus that is developing is still alive, just not matured. So because a fetus doesnt turn into something that looks like a baby in a matter of minutes or hours is okay to kill because it takes a while to mature? The video that you do not want to see shows a 19 week old baby girl. She has red hair. She is fully formed, just tiny. She was aborted by saline. The saline poured all over her body and burned her to death. She has black burn marks all over her little arms and legs and body. She is curled up like a little angle. Are you telling me that she did feel that just because no one could hear her misery? She wasnt a living thing? Sorry, but it is murder and it is wrong. You dont have to even believe in God to understand that.
Such a baby!
You can poke and jab at others and make fun of what they say, but when it turns on you, you are suddenly "better" than everyone else? How so? You act like a little baby who starts a fight and then runs away. Don't play the innocent victim card. Go back and read some of your insulting posts, THAT is the reason people are "ganging up" on you and your superiority. Guess you better "show us" and just go away. Please....
ALWAYS WILL BABY.
x
Must have had soy in his baby formula sm
According to an article on World Net Daily:
Soy is making kids 'gay'
Posted: December 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jim Rutz
© 2006
There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a health food, one of our most popular.
Now, I'm a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it's organic. I state my bias here just so you'll know I'm not anti-health food.
The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.
(Column continues below)
I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.
Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your female side, physically and mentally.
In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.
If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.
Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual. No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.
Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal.
Research in 2000 showed that a soy-based diet at any age can lead to a weak thyroid, which commonly produces heart problems and excess fat. Could this explain the dramatic increase in obesity today?
Recent research on rats shows testicular atrophy, infertility and uterus hypertrophy (enlargement). This helps explain the infertility epidemic and the sudden growth in fertility clinics. But alas, by the time a soy-damaged infant has grown to adulthood and wants to marry, it's too late to get fixed by a fertility clinic.
Worse, there's now scientific evidence that estrogen ingredients in soy products may be boosting the rapidly rising incidence of leukemia in children. In the latest year we have numbers for, new cases in the U.S. jumped 27 percent. In one year!
There's also a serious connection between soy and cancer in adults – especially breast cancer. That's why the governments of Israel, the UK, France and New Zealand are already cracking down hard on soy.
In sad contrast, 60 percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain soy. Worse, soy use may double in the next few years because (last I heard) the out-of-touch medicrats in the FDA hierarchy are considering allowing manufacturers of cereal, energy bars, fake milk, fake yogurt, etc., to claim that soy prevents cancer. It doesn't.
P.S.: Soy sauce is fine. Unlike soy milk, it's perfectly safe because it's fermented, which changes its molecular structure. Miso, natto and tempeh are also OK, but avoid tofu.
Speak for you own baby...
zzzzzzzzzzzz
|
