"We can have democracy in this country or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."
--Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, 1941

================

"The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it."

--Edward Dowling

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
Thomas Jefferson

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”
Thomas Jefferson

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
Thomas Jefferson

How are you going to attract competitive employees without competitive pay?

Did they not learn anything? Rewarding bankers for their bad behavior...talk about going around in circles!

Our economy should recover before Wall street goes back to being greedy.

Yolanda,
They never stopped being greedy.

I am so disgusted with the way things are going in this country. The Democrats in power say they are on the side of the people by throwing us a few token crumbs and the Republicans don't even bother to pretend that they aren't greedy by openly siding with corporate America.

Why is it that nobody sees the ponzicheme that goldman has pulled over your eyes?
Goldman did not have a profitable year. THEY WERE BAILED OUT!

Bailed out and stabilized by the TARP moneys they accepted, then bailed out again for a second time with the "double dip" of $20billion in TARP moneys we originally sent to AIG.
Question that must be asked of the FEDERAL RESERVE on behalf of we the people... Why was Goldman the sole creditor who was paid off in full?
Question if Goldman was so flush with capital why weren't they sent to the back of the line so that other AIG creditors who were barely treading water weren't forced into default compromises in order to remain in business.
THIS KETTLE OF IVY LEAGUE FISH DISGUISED AS ECONOMISTS STINK TO HIGH HEAVEN. Kindly include Barney Frank, Geithner and the rest of the banking committee in this hoax and hold their feet ot the fire, Rich.
This is the whooper that can't be allowed to get off the hook. Not for an instant.
Bonuses my ass! Goldman would have been just as insolvent as the rest, no question about it. The payoff by AIG in this 3 card monte scheme turned a $20billion dollar loss into a $20billion dollar taxfree profit, and nobody has blinked once. Winks yes, just look around that crooked pool table and see all the chesire cat smiles that are being suppressed.
Sic 'em, Richo. Go 50 on all of them.

Read it and weep! http://www.google.com/search?q=AIG+pays+off+Goldman+&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7RNTN_en

where's Eliot Spitzer when you need him.
this might the time to bring in the gunslinger. It would restore your credibility with at least some of the faithful.
This is better than the suicide phone booths, Superman. Might bring you another EMMY too!

O CHANNELS W
IN AFRICA, PREZ DOES US PROUD:

July 14, 2009

WHICH president spoke the following words?

"Where you have na tions that are oppressing their people, isn't there an international responsibility to intervene? I think the need for intervention becomes a moral imperative. . .

"There are going to be objections to just about any decision, because there are some in the international community who believe that state sovereignty is sacrosanct. . .

"But we also say we're not going to just wait indefinitely and allow for the development of a nuclear weapon, the breach of international treaties, and wake up one day and find ourselves in a much worse position and unable to act."

No, that wasn't George W. Bush justifying regime-change in Iraq. It was Barack Obama, speaking at a press conference in Italy last Friday. But his language and logic sounded as if he were channeling Bush.

Our president cited the British prime minister's anecdote about a boy who dreamed of becoming a doctor, only to be massacred. The tale was set in Rwanda. But it could have been the story of a Kurdish child gassed by Saddam Hussein.

It would have shown a flash of integrity had the media noted Obama's sudden adherence to the Bush Doctrine. But this isn't just about Gotcha! Two big things appear to be in play.

First, Obama's been getting a taste of strategic reality served up by just about every thug on the planet. (And the prez can't have been happy with the lecture he got last week from Russian strongman Vladimir Putin -- the O-Man prefers to do the lecturing himself.)

The second thing is that political hypocrisy governs our domestic criticism of war. Had Bill Clinton deposed Saddam Hussein -- who Clinton believed held weapons of mass destruction -- our left would have celebrated him as the greatest liberator since Lincoln.

The problem was never what we did in Iraq, but who did it. The crocodile tears for our troops were all about tearing down Bush.

Where are the cries of "Support our troops, bring them home!" now that Obama's president? We still have almost 200,000 service members in war zones, folks. The soldiers and Marines are just as dead -- yet somehow Bush's surge was bad, while Obama's surge is good.

But what to make of the president's new rhetoric? Is Obama coming to his senses? If so, it will still involve a nasty learning curve. He's been making foreign-policy and security mistakes faster than any president in history.

Yet there's hope. Obama's latest adore-me tour began badly, but ended on a powerful positive note. Following the debacle in Moscow and disappointment in Italy (where the G8 proved resistant to charisma), the president made a wise, useful and praiseworthy stop in Ghana.

He was in his element. His speech to the continent (Obama doesn't speak to mere countries) was the finest I've heard on the subject from an American president. The charisma did work in Accra, and Obama used it to send a tough-love message that Africans needed to hear from our first black president.

He spoke, eloquently, of the need for Africans to take responsibility for their own future and to fight corruption, arguing that Africa needs strong institutions, not strongmen. He even had the audacity to insist that, while colonialism did its damage, it can't be blamed for the disaster in Zimbabwe and other self-wrought failures.

It was a great speech (he should give a variant of it to several of our own domestic constituencies). I could not have been prouder of our president.

But Obama was channeling Bush in Africa, too.

W never got remotely as much credit as he deserves for taking Africa seriously, for pushing through effective development programs that helped AIDS sufferers, small entrepreneurs and democracy advocates.

Bush established a solid foundation on which Obama can build, making up for our long neglect of a continent of still-untapped potential. There's more to Africa than headline disasters. This may be the foreign-policy sphere in which Obama can do historic good.

And (go ahead and burn me at the stake) there's more to be gained in Africa than in Afghanistan.

The question now is which Obama we'll get as his administration matures. Will it be the eternal undergraduate convinced that America is wicked, or an emerging realist who recognizes that it doesn't matter if a mass-murderer's rhetoric is of the right or left?

Can the eternal campaigner become a man of conscience?

Comment from: Caspian [Visitor] · http://tinyurl.com/6zzfge
The Man Who Predicted The Economic Meltdown
http://tinyurl.com/6zzfge /
All Things Considered, December 4, 2008 · As one in a small group of analysts who publicly predicted the collapse of the American financial system, Peter Schiff was a lonely — and much maligned — voice on cable's financial news shows.
In August 2006, Schiff, the self-confident president of the Connecticut-based brokerage firm Euro Pacific Capital, warned viewers on CNBC that the U.S. economy would be hampered by "too much consumption and borrowing and not enough production and savings." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97801606
------------------------------

Site: http://www.constitution.org/col/cuddy_nwo.htm


Caspian: You also forgot Wm Donaldson a personal Bush Appointee to the SEC who from 2004-05 railed against the Bush/Gramm deregulation, until he was fired.
THEN ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE AS THE DEMON SEED of select IVY League appointees as described fully in DL Cuddys exposee of the Federal Reserve in " A CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER, which we presented here years ago, COX, PAULSON, GEITHNER, SANFORD etal WERE RELEASED EN MASSE FROM "THE BUSH TROJAN HORSE".
Hmmmm! Did I say "trojan"? I meant the more appropriate and definitive acronym that ends with ____bags.

You also forgot Jim Kramer's alarm that was sounded just before the meltdown. Then again, we have been warning people ever since 2002 that the Bush OWNERSHIP SOCIETY WAS AN EXERCISE IN ORWELLIAN DOUBLE SPEAK.
Ownership even back then was carefully defined as "the sell of accrued assets and freedom for the chains of Bush pipedreams via indentured servitude.

Armed with this treatise "We the people", stil have the inalienable right to present the evidences that pose the existence of rampant conspiracy to undermine the very existence of our nation, within the hall of our government. Especially as they have unfolded over the course of the last 8yrs.

GLOBALISM AND IT'S AFFILIATION AND FUNDING OF NEW WORLD ORDER DICTATORSHIPS DO NOT SERVE AMERICA OR FREEDOM.
WE ARE NOT HERE TO SERVE DEMOGOGUES AND CHARLATANS.
PRIVACY AND FREEDOM ALONG WITH LIVE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS ARE "INALIENABLE RIGHTS" GIVEN TO ALL MEN AND WOMEN WHO WORK AND SERVE "THIS COUNTRY AS PROVIDED IN "OUR CONSTITUTION" AND SHOULD BE SACRIFICED FOR NO TRAITOR OR INVADER WHO WOULD ATTEMPT TO SELL OFF OR COMPROMISE... THESE GOD GIVEN FREEDOMS GRANTED TO EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL.

WORD TO THE WISE!

...Beware! ...the beasts from Jekyll Island, ...THE fEDERAL RESERVE, THE CFTC, THE IMF, ponzi scheming cult leaders and their idols, and all other parasitical destroyers of the true vision of the American Dream.

Live and let live w/ dignity and respect the privacy of the individual and his heredity.

John, we have to continue voting in third party candidates because both parties 'Will Not' change the corrupt system that feeds them.

-----------------------

Americans need a viable third and forth party who will represent “We The People” instead of the wealthy few who own Congress!

Progressive Democrats / http://pdamerica.org/

Green Party / http://gp.org/index.php

Ralph Nader / http://www.votenader.org/

Ron Paul / http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Libertarian Party / http://www.lp.org/

GAO's Walker Sounds An Alarm
http://tinyurl.com/2aptf5 11.05.06 Nov. 5, 2006
Accountants don't often speak in revolutionary tones, but these days David Walker, head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office sounds a lot more like Thomas Paine than your average calculator-carrying CPA.
"History has shown that when America faces difficult challenges and when it rises to the occasion, anything is possible," he said in an interview. Yet “a fiscal cancer,” he said, “is growing within us, that if we don't treat, can have catastrophic consequences."
http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/05/walker-gao-concord-face-cx_rs_1103autofacescan04.html

Bush Republicans are not conservative and Clinton Democrats are not liberal!

They all work for Wall Street and K-Street not Main Street!

Ron Paul Authentic Conservative
http://tinyurl.com/3ldue3
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Ralph Nader Authentic Liberal
http://tinyurl.com/2powf
http://www.votenader.org

Oil & Gas: Money to Congress
http://tinyurl.com/67oymj
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=E01&cycle=2008&recipdetail=S&mem=Y

As Goldman Sachs Posts Record Profits, Matt Taibbi Probes Role of Investment Giant in US Financial Meltdown July 15, 2009 /
Goldman Sachs, the nation’s most powerful financial company, has reported the richest quarterly profit in its 140-year history: $3.44 billion between April and June. Goldman’s record profits come just one month after it repaid $10 billion of TARP money to the US Treasury, freeing itself from restrictions on year-end bonuses. We speak to Matt Taibbi, whose new Rolling Stone article argues that “Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression.”
http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2009/july/video/dnB20090715a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=00:35:00

ARMED ROBBERY AGAIN OF THE TAXPAYER! Nothing to do with 'healthy capitalism' and lesson unlearned. What is unhealthy capitalism?

And, AS A PAYBACK TO THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER FOR THE TAXPAYER BAILOUT OF BANKS, and because the banks stole their bailout with Paulson from Goldman Sacks, the banks can and should forget about any late fees, ETC., on their credit card accounts and be thankful that they are getting paid back anything at all with a little interest.

ARMED ROBBERY AGAIN OF THE TAXPAYER! Nothing to do with 'healthy capitalism' and lesson unlearned. What is unhealthy capitalism?

And, AS A PAYBACK TO THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER FOR THE TAXPAYER BAILOUT(S) OF BANKS, and because the banks stole their bailout with Paulson from Goldman Sacks, the banks can and should forget about any late fees, ETC., on their credit card accounts, automobile loans, mortgage loans, and be thankful that they are getting paid back anything at all with a little interest.

A Scandal About Nothing:

The Democrats’ campaign against the CIA’s al-Qaeda assassination program is political war by other means.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009


The secret is out. Since the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the CIA has been developing covert plans to assassinate Osama bin Laden and other high-level al-Qaeda leaders.



If this news does not trouble you, you are probably not a Congressional Democrat. For the past several months, the Democratic leadership has waged a public-relations insurgency against the CIA, incited by Nancy Pelosi’s sensational charge that the agency has been misleading Congress “all the time.”



Pelosi, of course, has a personal vendetta against the agency. This May, she came in for bipartisan scorn when the CIA released records showing that she had been informed about its use of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques on several terrorist detainees, thereby shattering Pelosi’s repeated insistence that she had no knowledge of the interrogation methods she had opportunistically decried as “torture.” In a further embarrassment to the House Speaker, CIA Director Leon Panetta, a fellow California Democrat, was moved to issue a statement affirming that it was not the agency’s practice to mislead Congress. Pelosi’s shrinking credibility on national security matters temporarily muted the attacks on the CIA. But that changed on June 24, when Panetta acknowledged the existence of the covert assassination program and announced that it had been terminated.



On cue, Democrats went on the offensive. The secret CIA program was now held up as proof that the CIA was misleading Congress, and several House Democrats even wrote Panetta demanding that he “correct” his previous statement to the contrary. Not only did Democrats claim vindication about the supposed duplicity of CIA, but they found another excuse to condemn the Bush administration, by suggesting that it was Vice President Cheney who authorized the assassination program and purposely kept it secret from the Congress. Underlying it all was the familiar Democratic refrain that the United States had once again sacrificed the moral high ground in the war on terror.



Little has so far emerged about the CIA program, but what is known casts serious doubt on each of the Democrats’ claims. First and foremost, the now-scrapped CIA program had nothing at all to do with the conduct of interrogations or detainee treatment, the two points on which Pelosi, misleadingly, claimed to have been misled. Instead, it was designed to place specially trained CIA “hit teams” abroad to assassinate al-Qaeda members. As one unnamed intelligence official told the Wall Street Journal, the idea was to put together a team of CIA and special-operations forces who would “put bullets in [the] heads” of al-Qaeda leaders.



Opposing the carefully planned killing of al-Qaeda terrorists is hardly a winning platform in American politics, so Democrats complain instead that they were not told about the assassination program. It’s not clear, however, what there was to tell. By all accounts the program was always in the planning stages, and was never close to being operational. That was still true when Panetta cancelled the program last month – eight years after President Bush had authorized the agency to look into ways to kill and capture al-Qaeda leaders.



It’s worth noting that just because Congress had not been briefed about the program does not mean that it would always remain in the dark. CIA officers were instructed to inform Congress in the event that they planned to carry out targeted assassinations. The chances of that happening were unlikely, however, since the program reportedly was supported by neither President Bush nor Vice President Cheney – the mastermind, in the Democrats’ telling, of this alleged conspiracy to deceive Congress and exceed executive authority.



Yet the fact that the assassination program was never carried out does not mean that it is indefensible. Although secret, it was not illegal. Assassination “hit teams” had been authorized under President Bush’s 2001 order to find ways to kill al-Qaeda terrorists. It is true that the United States has outlawed assassinations since 1976, when President Gerald Ford banned the practice through an executive order. But while the assassination ban holds for political leaders, it does not apply to enemies of war like al-Qaeda, since it’s hard to draw a distinction between assassination and killing a declared enemy of the United States on the battlefield.



That was not only the Bush administration’s view. It is also the Obama administration’s position. Thus, in Pakistan, the administration has continued the Bush-era policy of using unmanned aerial drones to take out al-Qaeda operatives with missile strikes – an assassination policy in all but name.



Designed on stable legal footing, the CIA assassination program was also strategically sound. While drone strikes have proven effective in killing Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Pakistan’s tribal territories, they come with serious drawbacks, including collateral damage and the alienation of civilian populations. At least part of the thinking behind the current U.S.-led anti-Taliban offensive in Afghanistan’s Helmand province is the idea that a strictly hands-off approach to counterterrorism – of which drones are a key component – is inadequate to winning the broader war in South Asia. The CIA’s program would at least have offered an alternative, and it’s not surprising that some Republicans have called for it to be revived in altered form.



All in all, then, the latest CIA “scandal” looks to be another manufactured controversy by Congressional Democrats. So far from abusing its authority by planning assassinations, the CIA was doing its job by exploring possible ways to kill terrorists before they have a chance to attack. Amid all the talk of “secrecy,” the most conspicuous revelation to emerge in recent days has been the news that Democrats would rather throw a partisan tantrum against the CIA and the Bush administration than prosecute the war on terror. But that, of course, wasn’t much of a secret.

BURNING WHILE BIN LADEN FIDDLES:

July 15, 2009

Let's see if we have this straight: For years after 9/11, the CIA conspired to kill Osama bin Laden. The terror chief wasn't actually harmed by the plotting -- but still Capitol Hill Democrats are suitably scandalized.

Again.

The real scandal, of course, is that bin Laden apparently is still alive going on eight years after the Twin Towers came down -- not that Nancy Pelosi & Co. care a fig about that.

So now commences another tiresome public airing of CIA secrets -- on the grounds that Congress was never informed of the bin Laden scheming.

Gee, do you suppose the CIA is reluctant to share such information with Congress because it usually ends up in the newspapers?

CIA Director Leon Panetta says he terminated the plotting last month -- but now it's at the heart of another public flogging of the agency, even though there is no suggestion that it was at all illegal.

And, once again, a crystal-clear signal is being sent to every foreign clandestine service whose help the Unites States may seek from time to time.

That is, one cooperates with the Americans at the risk of someday appearing on the front page of major newspapers.

No wonder bin Laden is still lolling around his cave.

Bill F: Bin Laden is stll lolling around in his cave because George Dumbya Bush dropped the ball, period. That's all that needs to be said unless you need the entire laundry list of failures and facilitations listed in detail once again for you.
Perhaps, its better that you keep noting the inexplicable phantom Cheney garbage that you seem to have swallowed hook line and sinker that had
1. no set plans
2. no itemized budget
3. no moneys spent or itenary that could be traced by the GAO.
YET THIS GOOFY EXCURSION WAS TO GO OFF WITHOUT A HITCH, WITH PRECISION ACCURACY. Hmmmmmmmm! Don't you know that in order for this type of mission to be sucessful there must be some form of outside help for intelligence and drop facilitation. That my friend costs money in amounts that must be negotiated prior to incursion for proper coodination.
Duh! Some military genius we have here. Bah! Why waste the time explaining what everyone else in this country has dismissed long ago.
We all know the Cheney modus of operations ... Never expose yourself, to your target, hide well, while getting the total benefit of the blind,[cheney in the bunker on 9/11, Cheney hiding behind Executive Privileges not granted to his position, Cheney's duck shoot and run vanishing act after shooting his friend in the face] let someone else be the fallguy and hang "him" out to dry ala Scooter Pie Libby, and leaving lil' Bush uninformed in the classroom in case the "secret mission" goes bust.

YEAH CHENEY SHOULD BE JAILED AND COURT MARTIALED FOR THE INSUBORDINATION OF PRESUMING TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT ANY ACTIONS WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT DELAY.

Hmmmmmmmm! Did anyone ever see much bunker Dick Cheney emerge much less take any action against Al Qaeda of their leadership during his terms in office.
OF COURSE NOT... EVERY SINGLE TIME THE ISSUE WAS BROUGHT TO HIM FACE TO FACE HE BUCKLED AND CAVED IN... WITH RESPONSES LIKE THIS...
a) There's no sense of obligation to pursue Bin laden. He's not important.
b) "I do not know, Ahmed Chalabi, Never heard of him. He's an Iranian collaborator, er' I mean Let's make him Minister of Oil, that ought to keep him quiet about #1 our backdoor deals #2 the $300m dollar payoff for his faulty info that we forwarded to Colin Powell
c) "Don't worry Scooter, I've got your back. Pardon me while I drop off the radar. See ya."
d) Shoot first, ask questions later. " Gee, I'm sorry I thought I heard you meant to call me a Dick".

BONUS QUESTION: HOW MANY DEFERRALS AND REASONS FOR NOT SERVING IN VIET NAM DID DICK CHENEY PRESENT TO RECRUITERS?

Yeah right! Dick Cheney is a real stand-up guy alright. Question is.... Is that before of after he craps his pants.

"Bill F: Bin Laden is stll lolling around in his cave because......"

.......maybe because the Democratic left kept spilling the beans from CIA leaks to the NY Times, giving all the Administrations secrets away, just like they are doing now. They never wanted Bush to catch or kill Ben Laden and did their damnest to foil any possibility. The Democratic left can't have it both ways no matter how much they yearn. (SEE BELOW)

--------------------------------------

Ex-CIA director defends al Qaeda initiative:
Woolsey says hit-team idea was apparently 'talk ed about'

July 17, 2009


A CIA director for the Clinton White House on Thursday defended a George W. Bush administration initiative to assassinate al Qaeda leaders and the agency's decision to keep the idea top secret.

"It doesn't appear as if they actually did anything with respect to these projected or possible assassinations of al Qaeda leaders," R. James Woolsey Jr., CIA director from 1993 to 1995, told The Washington Times' "America's Morning News" radio show.

"It looks like they talked about it. ... I think the way the statute generally works is when you engage in planning or are on the verge of taking an action you really ought to be briefing your congressional committees, or the so-called Gang of Eight, the eight senior members of Congress, not when things are just at a talk stage."

The Bush administration considered assembling a team overseas to assassinate al Qaeda leaders after the Sept. 11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

"We do assassinate al Qaeda leaders," said Mr. Woolsey, 69. "We're at war with al Qaeda."

The hit-team idea recently surfaced when CIA Director Leon E. Panetta reportedly learned about the concept, then told congressional leaders last month that he had terminated it.

The recent focus on CIA activities began earlier this year when President Obama declared some of the Bush administration's enhanced-interrogation techniques as torture.

In May, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, accused the agency of lying to her about the advanced techniques, including one known as waterboarding.

Mr. Woolsey, who endorsed Republican Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential race, said Thursday that the United States has a long, unapologetic history of going after people who kill Americans that dates to at least World War II.

"This is no different than when we set up long-range fighters from aircraft carriers in the Pacific in 1942 and shot down the plane of Admiral Yamamoto, who commanded at Pearl Harbor and Midway. We killed him intentionally. ... At war time, you do that."

The United States has tried to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders since Sept. 11 with missile-firing, remote-control aircraft and special forces teams in Afghanistan.

However, the hit teams reportedly have been only an on-and-off idea in the past eight years.

CIA Director George Tenet reportedly canceled the classified plan in 2004, which was revived by his successor, Porter Goss, about a year later, and was then canceled again under the direction of Michael Hayden, who took over the agency in 2006.

Mr. Tenet could not be reached for comment.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is considering an investigation into whether it was stonewalled by the CIA and how much was spent on the program, which could determine whether it progressed from talks to implementation.

"The scope, workplan and whether any inquiry will be bipartisan will have to be determined," committee spokesman Jamal Ware said.

CIA spokesman George Little said the agency "will cooperate with Congress as it looks into this matter. At the same time, Director Panetta has ordered a thorough internal review that should result in lessons learned on congressional reporting."

Mr. Panetta has stood by his early statement that the CIA does not have a policy of misleading Congress.

Too bad, all the big fish got away with billions in bailout ... while the ones who has worked hard for their success gets punished... kinda like all the illegals taking your jobs while your wealth gets redistributed... kinda like what the Nazis did to the Jews back in the 40's ... yeah, I'd call this healthy socialism.

Way to obscure the facts once again. Good job RNN.

For no one w/ Much Respect for the insight and the website: ...and Everyone Else Who Has At least one Living Brain Cell and Wants to See Real Change

Ed Schultz: Make Rich Guys Like Cheney Pay For Our Health Care
By Mark Finkelstein | July 15, 2009 - 20:42

Support nationalized health care! Ain't gonna cost you nuthin. We'll stick rich guys like Dick Cheney with the bill!

That was Ed Schultz's brazen appeal to something-for-nothing class warfare, made on his MSNBC show this evening. Schultz's make-Cheney-pay plea was the subject of his "Op Ed."

FIND IT AND VIEW IT!
Ed Schultz fully explains the deception behind denying all Americans healthcare in return for the losses incurred by the establishments delinquent overlords.
Then smile the next time you hear a Congressman or Senator tell you that the costs are too prohibitive. KNOWING THAT YOU HAVE THE POWER TO SEND THEM TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINE!

http:newsbusters.org/

For no one w/ Much Respect for the insight and the website: ...and Everyone Else Who Has At least one Living Brain Cell and Wants to See Real Change

Ed Schultz: Make Rich Guys Like Cheney Pay For Our Health Care
By Mark Finkelstein | July 15, 2009 - 20:42

Support nationalized health care! Ain't gonna cost you nuthin. We'll stick rich guys like Dick Cheney with the bill!

That was Ed Schultz's brazen appeal to something-for-nothing class warfare, made on his MSNBC show this evening. Schultz's make-Cheney-pay plea was the subject of his "Op Ed."

FIND IT AND VIEW IT! Page Down It will take time but the explanation is well worth it.
Ed Schultz fully explains the deception behind denying all Americans healthcare in return for the losses incurred by the establishments delinquent overlords.
Then smile the next time you hear a Congressman or Senator tell you that the costs are too prohibitive. KNOWING THAT YOU HAVE THE POWER TO SEND THEM TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINE!

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! And will negate the blabber of the thousand ditto heads on tv.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Ed+Schultz%3A+Make+Rich+Guys+Like+Cheney+Pay+For+Our+Health+Care&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7RNTN_en

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! And will negate the blabber of the thousand ditto heads on tv.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Ed+Schultz%3A+Make+Rich+Guys+Like+Cheney+Pay+For+Our+Health+Care&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7RNTN_en

Send a copy of this website to your Congressman or Senator and let them know where you stand.

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! And will negate the blabber of the thousand ditto heads on tv.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Ed+Schultz%3A+Make+Rich+Guys+Like+Cheney+Pay+For+Our+Health+Care&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7RNTN_en

Send a copy of this website to your Congressman or Senator and let them know where you stand. The genie is out of the bottle.

"...and Everyone Else Who Has At least one Living Brain Cell..."

Shucks, that certainly that leaves you out!

---------------------------------------

HEALTH-REFORM MALPRACTICE:

IT'S A JOB KILLER

July 16, 2009

With unemployment rapidly approaching 10 percent, one would think it would be a priority for Congress to make it easier for businesses to hire workers. But the health-care bill unveiled by House Democrats on Tuesday goes in exactly the opposite direction, actually making it more expensive to hire workers.

The bill would require all but the very smallest businesses to provide health insurance to their workers. Employers would have to pay 72.5 percent of the premium for individual coverage and 65 percent for family coverage. Those businesses that don't comply would be assessed a penalty or tax equal to 8 percent of their payroll.

Such a mandate is simply a disguised tax on employment. And while it might be politically appealing to claim that business will bear the new tax burden, nearly all economists see it quite differently.

Business owners care about the total cost of hiring a worker, not how that cost is apportioned between wages, taxes, health insurance or retirement benefits (or for that matter, a free parking space). Mandating insurance or assessing a new tax penalty simply increases the cost of hiring that worker.

Employers will therefore seek ways to offset the added cost by raising prices (the most unlikely solution in a competitive market), lowering wages, reducing future wage increases, reducing other benefits (such as pensions), cutting back on hiring, laying off current workers, shifting workers from full-time to part-time or outsourcing.

Most economists believe that the largest portion of those offset costs would come in the form of job loss, since workers are likely to resist wage reductions.

In addition, minimum-wage laws provide a floor for how far employers could reduce wages. As Larry Summers, now head of the White House's National Economic Council, once wrote, the minimum-wage means that "wages cannot fall to offset employers' cost of providing a mandated benefit, so it is likely to create unemployment."

In a study for the National Federation of Independent Business, Michael Chow and Bruce Phillips estimate that as many as 1.6 million jobs could be lost in the first five years after an employer mandate was imposed, of which two-thirds would be from small businesses with fewer than 500 employees, 55 percent from companies with fewer than 100 employees, and 28.9 percent from companies with just 20 employees or fewer.

Low-skilled and low-wage workers would be particularly at risk. Roughly 43 percent of uninsured workers are working within three dollars of the minimum wage. The mandated-insurance costs will represent a proportionately significant increase in the cost of employing those workers. The most likely outcome will be greater unemployment for workers whose lack of skills does not justify the increased cost.

If that wasn't enough, the House plan funds health-care reform with a huge income-tax surcharge, starting at 1 percent for individual filers with income above $280,000 and increasing to 5.4 percent for those with incomes of $1 million.

Combined with President Obama's plan to allow President Bush's tax cuts to expire, and high New York state and city taxes, the new surtax would mean New Yorkers would face a top marginal tax rate of 58.6 percent. That would have a devastating impact on investment and job creation.

Many of those forced to pay the new surtax would not be wealthy individuals but small businesses that file as sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations whose owners pay the individual rate. In fact, nearly 60 percent of those affected by the surtax have at least some small-business income.

Whatever one thinks of the dubious merits of this health-care bill overall, basic economics, not to mention common sense, suggests that it shouldn't be financed at the expense of jobs.

On the average 98.8 percent of America has lost well over $40,000 in equity, via wages, lost home equity, depleted pensions and disappearing healthcare that used to be provided by their employers. They footed the entire bill of the Bush Wars to Nowhere and funded the entire refinancing of these business and paid their bonuses without receiving a single stock option or promisory note.
The cost of applying these torniquets amounting to well over $3.9trillion dollars [BushWars= $1.2trillion,Federal reserve/ Bank Bailouts= $2.7trillion] were loans by the guaranteed by the public who did not receive the magical Bush TAXCUTS that over 8yrs amounted to an astounding $560b dollars.
If you think I can't count and decipher the total one sidedness of these simple figures and relay the facts, not the suppositions or contrivances of a government ditto head being paid by lobbyists and the NWO orchestrators of quintessinal bullshit artists, ...so be it.

The tale of the tape reads as follows
98.8 of America has paid in spades for the follies of the globalists. IT'S THEIR TURN TO PAY---> THE PIPERS!
Now take your lips off the exhaust pipe and start taking in oxygen, brains cell require clean air, not recycled animal fertilizer, regurgitated by a "stool" pigeon.

On the average 98.8 percent of America has lost well over $40,000 and more in many cases, in equity via wages, lost home equity, depleted pensions and disappearing healthcare that used to be provided by their employers. They footed the entire bill of the Bush Wars to Nowhere and funded the entire refinancing of these business and paid their bonuses without receiving a single stock option or promisory note.
The cost of applying these torniquets amounting to well over $3.9trillion dollars [BushWars= $1.2trillion,Federal reserve/ Bank Bailouts= $2.7trillion] were loans by the guaranteed by the public who did not receive the magical Bush TAXCUTS that over 8yrs amounted to an astounding $560b dollars.
If you think I can't count and decipher the total one sidedness of these simple figures and relay the facts, not the suppositions or contrivances of a government ditto head being paid by lobbyists and the NWO orchestrators of quintessinal bullshit artists, ...so be it.

The tale of the tape reads as follows
98.8 of America has paid in spades for the follies of the globalists. IT'S THEIR TURN TO PAY---> THE PIPERS! Whatever the shortfall amounts to that is found, let the "entire" deficit be matched from their coffers. NO MORE CORPORATE WELFARE... NO MORE BANKROLLING FOREIGN BANKS AND SOVEREIGN WEALTHFUNDS WITH EMERGENCY TAXPAYER FUNDS. OUR MONEY STAYS HERE TO FINANCE AMERICAN PRODUCTION AND JOBS. JOBS COME FIRST!!! HEALTHCARE CAN COME A LITTLE LATER. ---> WHEN EVERYONE IS WORKING, THEN FINANCING HEALTHCARE IS SO MUCH MORE SIMPLER.
Now take your lips off the exhaust pipe and start taking in oxygen, brains cell require clean air, not recycled animal fertilizer, regurgitated by a "stool" pigeon.

Bye Bye Obomination,
and Bye Bye Socialism!

----------------------------------

Shifty Economics:

How Obama's stimulus spend-a-thon laid a trap for his re-election efforts

Thursday, July 16, 2009


.......Finally, Obama has laid a trap for himself. Just as the economy is coming out of its recession -- in 2010 and 2011 -- and he begins to run for reelection, he is going to face massive inflation. The money supply has more than tripled since October of 2008 and is going up each week as the Fed buys Treasury bills and other securities to "monetize the debt" (i.e., give other people money so they can lend it back to the government and charge it interest for doing so). With each new infusion of cash, the problem of avoiding inflation becomes particularly severe. Obama could well lose the elections of 2012 because of the inflation his deficit has created.

Of course, we all know that the only way to put the inflation virus back in the test tube is to trigger a new recession, this time caused by massive increases in interest rates, as Fed Chairman Paul Volcker did in 1979. If the recession doesn't doom Obama to a single term, the inflation will. And if the inflation doesn't get him, the subsequent recession will.

The deeper he gets into his term, the more it is apparent that he threw it all away when he first took office and demanded over $1 trillion in stimulus and supplemental appropriation spending. He was doomed to lose the game right after he received the first kickoff.

"Support nationalized health care! Ain't gonna cost you nuthin. We'll stick rich guys like Dick Cheney with the bill!"


When will you finally get a job and stop looking for free handouts on the backs of others? Have you even gone on any interviews in the past seven years? There must be something you can do, even though off hand I can't imagine what.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Health Care:

Friday, July 17, 2009

If priorities are to be believed, the priority the Obama administration has placed at the top could become a flop. Political pollster Daniel Yankelovich says that Americans are slowly leaving the “wishful stage” of the health care debate, when polling data showed broad support for a larger government role in medicine. Yankelovich predicts “in the next few weeks, when voters discover what national health care will cost and how it could affect their own care, romance will give way to reality.” Studies already show the legislation's eroding popularity, as citizens find out the problems inherent in socialized medicine, the tax increases necessary to finance it, and the deception politicians use to inflate the number of uninsured Americans.
A few months ago, Americans believed the nation’s health care system was in need of a major fix, according to a CBS poll. Nine out of ten said fundamental changes were called for, although most said they were satisfied with their own health care. Some 34 percent said that health care for the uninsured still was important.

But the polls were taken well before the public education campaign had begun, and Congress was stunned and flummoxed by estimates of the cost of health care legislation being drafted in the Senate. The impartial Congressional Budget Office calculated the legislation could cost $1 trillion or $1.6 trillion, depending on its legislative components.

Little comfort was given to the public when they realized that just taxing the top tax bracket, the despised “rich,” would not provide enough money to pay for universal health care—that the tax collector would undoubted have to delve down to the middle-class taxpayer to finance a giant health plan. Kaiser Health News has reported dollars would have to be extracted from the “top-earning 40 percent of the population,” to pay for universal health care. When people learn ObamaCare means a massive tax increase for nearly half of all Americans, a revolt could ensue.

Still another major concern began to dampen public enthusiasm for nationalized medicine. It was in the proposed powers of a national health czar, known as the Health Choices commissioner, reported Kaiser Health News. The commissioner and the health choices agency would oversee a health insurance exchange, according to a draft bill in the House. The Health Choices Administrator would be the bureaucrat who would deliver Obama’s extravagant promise of affordable health for all. A health insurance exchange would be created, a national purchasing pool from which individuals and small businesses would pick from private plans or a government-run alternative.

The Commissioner’s authority would be all-encompassing. He would determine who would qualify for federal subsidies to aid in buying coverage, set standards for handling grievances for claims denied, govern insurance marketing campaigns, and set other standards normally controlled by the states.

Many citizens are seeing ads on their TV sets telling of the horrors of socialized medicine in Europe, Britain and Canada, where interminable waits for treatments are customary, and rationing of medical care is commonplace, especially for the aging. The largest threat for the aging is whether The Obama Administration’s National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, already encompassed in the Stimulus law, limits care for seniors only to what is “cost effective.” This is done in countries where health care is rationed to exclude treatment for many seniors, because they are judged to be near life’s end; why “waste” the expense?

Finally, no clear picture is given of even how many Americans are uninsured. Figures such as 46 million, 47 million, even 50 million are tossed about by politicians. The U.S. Census Bureau has tucked away in scores of pages of tables intriguing figures on the number of types and characteristics of people who do not have health insurance. The total latest figure, based on information gathered in 2008 is 45,657,000 uninsured. But this is deceiving. That figure represents the total of Americans who were without health insurance at any time during the year—even for a few weeks.

The figure also includes 9,737,000 who were not U.S. citizens.

The Congressional Budget office said in a 2003 study, “The uninsured group is constantly changing.” It analyzed data from “several federally sponsored national surveys.” Its findings: only between 21 and 31 percent were uninsured for the whole year. Between 56 and 59 percent were uninsured at any time during the year. Of those, ten percent said they didn’t need inurance. Seventy-one percent said it cost too much, but half of these bought it anyway in four months or less.

Demographics also come into play. Americans age 18-to-24 years old who were uninsured at least some part of the year totaled 7,991,000. Many of them, of course, were healthy and had uses for their money other than health insurance. Those age 25-to-34 numbered 10,329,000. Some 7,717,000 Americans age 35-to-44 were uninsured for some period during the year. Uninsured people 45 to 64 totaled 10,754,000. And those 65 and older numbered only 686,000. They may well have not yet signed up for Medicare or didn’t want it.

The total number of citizens who were covered by private insurance in 2007 was 202,991,000, according to the Census Bureau figures.

Millions more were enrolled in government programs. The total number insured by the government was put at 83,031,000. According to the government, 43 million people were enrolled in Medicare in 2006, 36 million of whom were 65 or older. The balance was disabled. Fifty-three million people are enrolled in Medicaid, the program for low-income Americans. Others are covered by military or state health plans.

A number of middle-income people who probably could afford health insurance were uninsured for some portion of the year. Those in this category with household incomes of from $50,000 to $74,900 totaled 8,848,000. Americans with household incomes of $75,000 or more, numbered 9,115,000. They told Census surveyors they were uninsured at some point during the year, so the Census Bureau tables showed.

Uninsured Americans under 18 were said to total 8,149,000. But because the latest Census figures, gathered in 2008, were for 2007, they didn’t include the effects of a law President Obama signed this past February 4. It reauthorized and expanded SCHIP, which added 4 million children to government health care. Children in families with incomes up to three times the federal poverty level qualified for the program. Children at even higher income levels in New York and New Jersey were allowed to qualify for SCHIP benefits, which now include dental care and mental problems. Proven citizenship is not required. The law provided coverage for an added 4 million children by 2013. So, in fact, there are far fewer than 45.6 million uninsured Americans.

When these facts sink in, the American people may rise up against ObamaCare. It wouldn’t be the first time such plans backfired on Congress. In 1988, Congress passed a bill to protect the elderly against the cost of catastrophic illness. But the cost to seniors—who would have been charged a big surtax to pay for it—was comparable to a slap in the face. The elderly were boiling over. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-IL, then chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who was most responsible for the bill, was vilified. At one point, a large group of seniors chased the lawmaker’s car down the street shouting and waving their canes at him. The bill was repealed some months later. (Rostenkowski later went to jail for mail fraud.) Now, with broad health care changes being drafted on the Hill, a repeat of the uprising in 1988 is not impossible.

When Obama signed the bill into law, he said, that “providing coverage to 11 million children through SCHIP is a down payment on my commitment to cover every single American.” That “commitment” may well end up as another Obama broken promise.

Walter Cronkite RIP was the most honest man in news and will be missed.

Everyone should boycott CBS for stabbing him in the back!

Hey, paper soldier the last time I looked you were the beneficiary of my tax contributions and your employ I might say doesn't seem to have done anything toward the capture of any taliban or Al Qaeda figures to date, nor does the possibility of that happening figure to be possible as long as you keep wastyng your time and ours here posting other peoples ideas.
You might kindly wish to consider putting away your safety scissors and retire. That would be one way toward eliminating waste, and the duplication of redundant overlapping agencies, correcting the budget deficit.
Ya think!
SUPPORT MILITARY EFFICIENCY... GET RID OF DEAD WOOD.

Hey, paper soldier the last time I looked you were the beneficiary of my tax contributions and your employ I might say doesn't seem to have done anything toward the capture of any taliban or Al Qaeda figures to date, nor does the possibility of that happening figure to be possible as long as you keep wastIng your time and ours here posting other peoples ideas.
You might kindly wish to consider putting away your safety scissors "or" retire. That would be one way toward eliminating waste, and the duplication of redundant overlapping agencies, correcting the budget deficit.
Ya think!
SUPPORT MILITARY EFFICIENCY... GET RID OF DEAD WOOD.

EITHER REALIZE YOUR FULL POTENTIAL OR BOW OUT GRACEFULLY. The choice is yours. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Hey, paper soldier the last time I looked you were the beneficiary of my tax contributions and your employ I might say doesn't seem to have done anything toward the capture of any taliban or Al Qaeda figures to date, nor does the possibility of that happening figure to be possible as long as you keep wastIng your time and ours here posting other peoples ideas.
You have championed every wrong headed policy and strategy that have claimed or drastically altered the lives of well over 50 million innocent people and their families worldwide while in the hapless pursuit of what once was 1,800 extremely bad guys who ironically have been the sole "protected" beneficiary of our keystone cop interventions.
Protected in Pakistan by Bushies alignment with a "do nothing" dictator Mushareff because the a-holes in command of our military farmed out the detail ---> THIS MISSION IS TOOOOOO DANGEROUS FOR OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL.
Allowed free reign in Iraq for years on end because of the Green Zone and the imposed curfew regulations that so closely resemble the DMZ taboos of your beloved Viet Nam debacle. ----> EITHER YOU ENGAGE, FIGHT, AND CHASE THE ENEMY YOU OUTNUMBER AND HIT THEM AT THEIR SOURCES, SO THAT THEY CANNOT RECOVER OR COME HOME AND QUIT BLOWING SMOKE UP OUR ASSES WHILE YOU DEVASTATE OUR SECURITIES AT HOME USING OUR FINANCES- PERIOD.---> YOU DON'T EARN RESPECT BY FARMING OUT YOUR CHORES TO MERCKS COSTING US 10X YOUR RATE OF PAY AND SITTING ON THE SIDELINES AS AN "ARMED" CHEERLEADER.
You might kindly wish to consider putting away your safety scissors "or" retire. That would be one way toward eliminating waste, and the duplication of redundant overlapping agencies, correcting the budget deficit.
Ya think!
SUPPORT MILITARY EFFICIENCY... GET RID OF DEAD WOOD.

EITHER REALIZE YOUR FULL POTENTIAL OR BOW OUT GRACEFULLY. The choice is yours. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

PS: For your information any national healthcare program will continue to be funded by my tax dollars and I have not drawn a single dime from either SSI, nor disability benefits, and do not participate in the intake of any type of pharmeceuticals.
SO IF YOU WILL PLEASE DEFINE, HOW YOU HAVE BEEN BURDENED BY MY PERSONAL SITUATIONS OR CURRENT STATUS OF MY FAMILIES AFFAIRS.
My advice to you is to get a "life", stand up to your myriad of psychotic fears, and quit attempting to invade inner sanctums with your rather anal retentive innuendos.

Caspian & Friends: You can always tell that you've stuck a nerve with NWO and big brother website overseers because their attacks attempt to become more direct and personal.
I fully expect to hear responses from the rest of the cabal of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE cohort shortly.

Consider this: Congress and the Senate has deliberately placed healthcare ahead of jobs because with a 15% unemployment number usurping our budget, and less workers paying into the Feds siphon, the numbers do not pan out without an immediate repeal of the Bush taxcuts.
The monkey wrench in achieving the necessary majority to implement the change in tax structure and regulation comes from the NWO junkies and sellouts from both parties.
If jobs and the creation of innovative mass production models are begun immediately here at home that put this 15% back to productive work that secures their families and cleanses the lands, food supply and waters that house and feed us, we all could more easily and readily contribute the difference, to have the model healthcare we deserve. THIS WHOLE ASS BACKWARD DOG AND PONY SHOW THAT WE ARE WATCHING BEFORE US IS JUST MORE OF THE SAME "REARRANGING THE DECKCHAIR" HOCUS POCUS MEANT TO BAMBOOZLE. IGNORE IT. AND COMBINE WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS TO WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IN NUMBERS THAT ARE NOTICEABLE AND CAN AFFECT THE CHANGE IN STRATEGY NEEDED TO KEEP YOURSELVES AND YOUR COUNTRY FREE.

Caspian & Friends: You can always tell that you've stuck a nerve with NWO and big brother website overseers because their attacks attempt to become more direct and personal.
I fully expect to hear responses from the rest of the cabal of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE cohort shortly.

Consider this: Congress and the Senate has deliberately placed healthcare ahead of jobs because with a 15% unemployment number usurping our budget, and less workers paying into the Feds siphon, the numbers do not pan out without an immediate repeal of the Bush taxcuts.
The monkey wrench in achieving the necessary majority to implement the change in tax structure and regulation comes from the NWO junkies and sellouts from both parties.
If jobs and the creation of innovative mass production models are begun immediately here at home WITH THE BULK OF THE $2.2 TRILLION REMAINING IN TARP AND BANK REFINANCE MONEYS that put this 15% back to productive work that secures their families and cleanses the lands, food supply and waters that house and feed us, we all could more easily and readily contribute the difference, to have the model healthcare we deserve. THIS WHOLE ASS BACKWARD DOG AND PONY SHOW THAT WE ARE WATCHING BEFORE US IS JUST MORE OF THE SAME "REARRANGING THE DECKCHAIR" HOCUS POCUS MEANT TO BAMBOOZLE. IGNORE IT. AND COMBINE WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS TO WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IN NUMBERS THAT ARE NOTICEABLE AND CAN AFFECT THE CHANGE IN STRATEGY NEEDED TO KEEP YOURSELVES AND YOUR COUNTRY FREE.

"EITHER REALIZE YOUR FULL POTENTIAL OR BOW OUT GRACEFULLY. The choice is yours. A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

Is that your excuse for your miserable plan and performance for the last 7 years or more where you attempted to strictly manipulate and eat off the system so as to benefit every selfish desire that popped into your head? Kindly don't deny this was your sole motive as we have over seven years of irrefutable proof in the form of RNN postings, signed ,sealed and entered by you,in your name.

A Reckless Congress:

Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income and business in American history.

JULY 17, 2009

Say this about the 1,018-page health-care bill that House Democrats unveiled this week and that President Obama heartily endorsed: It finally reveals at least some of the price of the reckless ambitions of our current government. With huge majorities and a President in a rush to outrun the declining popularity of his agenda, Democrats are bidding to impose an unrepealable European-style welfare state in a matter of weeks.

Mr. Obama's February budget provided the outline, but the House bill now fills in the details. To wit, tax increases that would take U.S. rates higher even than most of Europe. Yet even those increases aren't nearly enough to finance the $1 trillion in new spending, which itself is surely a low-ball estimate. Meanwhile, the bill would create a new government health entitlement that will kill private insurance and lead to a government-run system.

Hyperbole? That's what people said when we warned about this last fall in "A Liberal Supermajority," but even we underestimated the ideological willfulness of today's national Democrats. Consider only a few of the details:


A huge new income surtax. The bill's main financing comes from another tax increase on top of the increase already scheduled for 2011 under Mr. Obama's budget. The surtax starts at one percentage point for adjusted gross income above $350,000 in 2011, rising to two points in 2013; a 1.5 point surtax at incomes above $500,000, rising to three in 2013; and a whopping 5.4 percentage points in 2011 and beyond on incomes above $1 million.

This would raise the top marginal federal tax rate back to roughly 47% or 48%, if you include the Medicare tax and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. With the current top rate at 35%, this would be the largest rate increase outside the Great Depression or world wars.

The average U.S. top combined state-federal marginal tax rate would hit about 52%. This would be higher than in all but three (Denmark, Sweden, Belgium) of the 30 countries measured by the OECD. According to the nearby table compiled by the Heritage Foundation, taxpayers in at least five U.S. states would pay higher marginal rates even than Sweden. South Korea, which Democrats worry is stealing American jobs, would be able to grab even more as its highest rate is a far more competitive 38.5%.

House Democrats say they deserve credit for being honest about the tax increases needed to fund their ambitions. But then they also claim that this surtax would raise $544 billion in new revenue over 10 years. America's millionaires aren't that stupid; far fewer of them will pay these rates for very long, if at all. They will find ways to shelter income, either by investing differently or simply working less. Small businesses that pay at the individual rate will shift to pay the 35% corporate rate. When the revenue doesn't materialize, Democrats will move to soak the middle class with a European-style value-added tax.

Phony numbers. Democrats will have to come up with something, because even the surtax puts their bill at least $300 billion short of honest financing. The public insurance "option" doesn't even begin until 2013 and the costs are heavily weighted toward the later years, but the tax hikes start in 2011. So under Congress's 10-year budget window, the House bill is able to pay for seven years of spending with nine years of taxes. Andy Laperriere of the ISI Group estimates the bill would add $95 billion to the deficit in 2019 alone.

Then there's yesterday's testimony, from Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf, that ObamaCare's cost "savings" are an illusion. Mr. Obama claims government can cover more people and pay less to do it. But Mr. Elmendorf told the Senate Finance Committee that "In the legislation that has been reported we don't see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs."

Further on the public plan: "It raises the amount of activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate."

No matter, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is whisking the bill through House committees even before CBO has had a chance to score it in detail. As Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan put it to us, "We will not have read it, and we will not have a score of it, but we will have passed it out of committee."

A new payroll tax. Unemployment is at 9.5% and rising, but Democrats will nonetheless impose a new eight percentage point payroll tax on employers who don't provide health insurance for employees. This is on top of the current 15% payroll tax, and in addition to a new 2.5-percentage point tax on individuals who don't buy health insurance. This means that any employer with more than $400,000 in payroll would have to pay at least 25% above the salary to hire someone. Result: Many fewer new jobs, with a higher structural jobless rate, much as Europe has experienced as its welfare states have expanded.

Other new taxes, including an as yet undetermined levy on private health plans. This tax, which Democrats say could raise $100 billion or so, would make it even harder for private plans to compete with the government plan, which would already benefit from government subsidies and lower capital costs. For good measure, the House bill also gets the ball rolling on tax increases on foreign-source corporate income.

We could go on, and we will in coming days. But the most remarkable quality of this health-care exercise is its reckless disregard for economic and fiscal reality. With the economy still far from a healthy recovery, and the federal fisc already nearly $2 trillion in deficit, Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income and business in American history. The world is looking on, agog, and wondering why the United States seems intent on jumping off this cliff.

John, Truth Is Truth!

Isn't it true that Single Payer health care would be just like the Medicare program?

The Obama Public Option is a farce just like the Bush prescription drug bill for Seniors was a farce.

=============================

Single Payer vs. Public Option
http://tinyurl.com/nw8qru
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/14-3

Key health care senators have industry ties
06/12/2009 / http://tinyurl.com/krb3j2
WASHINGTON -- Influential senators working to overhaul the nation's health care system have investments and family ties with some of the biggest names in the industry. The wife of Sen. Chris Dodd, the lawmaker in charge of writing the Senate's bill, sits on the boards of four health care companies.
Members of both parties have industry connections, including Democrats Jay Rockefeller and Tom Harkin, in addition to Dodd, and Republicans Tom Coburn, Judd Gregg, John Kyl and Orrin Hatch, financial reports showed Friday. .
Jackie Clegg Dodd, wife of the Connecticut Democrat, is on the boards of Javelin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cardiome Pharma Corp., Brookdale Senior Living and Pear Tree Pharmaceuticals.
Dodd is filling in for ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which will soon start work on a health care bill. http://www.connpost.com/ci_12579507?source=rv

Top Senate Democrat: bankers "own" the U.S. Congress /
April 30, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/c4cbkc
Sen. Dick Durbin, on a local Chicago radio station this week, blurted out an obvious truth about Congress that, despite being blindingly obvious, is rarely spoken: "And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place." The blunt acknowledgment that the same banks that caused the financial crisis "own" the U.S. Congress -- according to one of that institution's most powerful members -- demonstrates just how extreme this institutional corruption is.

The ownership of the federal government by banks and other large corporations is effectuated in literally countless ways, none more effective than the endless and increasingly sleazy overlap between government and corporate officials. Here is just one random item this week announcing a couple of standard personnel moves:

Former Barney Frank staffer now top Goldman Sachs lobbyist
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/30/ownership/index.html

Report: Health Industry Employing Hundreds of Ex-Gov. Officials
July 06, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/nyx3t6
Here in the United States, the Washington Post is reporting the nation’s heath care industry has hired more than 350 former government officials and members of Congress to sway health care reform efforts on Capital Hill. According to lobbying records, three out of every four major health care companies have at least one former government insider on the payroll. Nearly half held positions under key committees and lawmakers including Senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley. Bacaus is chair of the Senate Finance Committee which is largely steering health care reform efforts. Baucus’s aides recently held a meeting with a group of lobbyists that included two of his former chiefs of staff. The Washington Post says the health care industry is now spending $1.4 million dollars a day on lobbying, totaling $126 million dollars in the first fiscal quarter.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/6/headlines#4

Yeah right, with all that whine, whine, whine, there still remains no positive results from the incredible dysfunction of taking this nation blindly into open ended wars with no enemies" in order to facilitate fiscal enslavement under the auspisis of "1800 people being so well connected that they pose such a threat to our collective safety and well being that we needed to bankrupt or make jobless well over 15-25,000,000 million working age Americans so that sly foxes could break down our society in the quest for other foreign ambitions.

PROOFS OF PREMEDITITION OF AMBITIONS ALONG WITH THE PROJECTION OF THEIR OUTCOMES AND AND AFTER AFFECTS ON OUR SOCIETY ARE WELL KNOWN BEYOND THE PERIMETERS OF THIS WEBSITE. THEY ARE AVAILABLE FOR ALL WHO CAN READ OR ARE CAPABLE OF LISTENING.
Freedom belongs to the individual. The right to an education and Truth in advertising are supposedly implicit protections that citizens and our predecessors fought for and gained for their continued adherence to the system by which we are governed.
Human beings are not to be herded threatened or prodded to behave like cattle.
God gave us each a mind that rules our behaviors and instinctively shield us from harm. Some use it to benefit themselves. Othewrs see and recieve more satisfaction in helping others avoid the landmines and ponzi schemes and pitfalls that the unscrupulous present as the only way to go forward.
Only by knowing the full background modusand objectives can a person make an informed opinion.


PNAC's Articles in Principals exposed the modus, method and participants who plotted together to bring us to war.
Along with these wars they attempted to garner total immunity from US LAWS, any accountability to citizens, or any obligation to pay for the invasions from which only they and their partnered collaborators would prosper.

Aaron Russo-(unedited)59 MINUTES Exposed the Federal Reserve and its deliberate rigging ofimplicit contradictions to a fair and honest capitalist system. CAPITALISM VS COMMUNISM
*Bullet points---> 19min -42min THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE NWO GLOBALISTS AS TOLD TO RUSSO 11MONTHS PRIOR TO 9/11, AND HOW THEY SOUGHT TO ACCOMPLIST IT.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5420753830426590918

Michael C Ruppert- Exposed fully the connections between the three confluences military, banking, through a stacked and manipulated components intell agency that are working to infuse the hideous components of the KGB and Nazi regimes for the purposes of crowd control through intimidations that are attempting to remake the world under DICTATORIAL police state mandates.

Michael C Ruppert Complete:
http://www.google.com/search?q=mICHAEL+c+rUPPERT&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7RNTN_en

DL Cuddy Complete:
http://www.google.com/search?q=DL+Cuddy+Federal+Reserve&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7RNTN_en

Caspian: As I stated before, there is no sense in hashing out the players and slayers of a single payer national health plan. the only way to obtain results is to direct your own knowledge of the games that are being played on us along with numbers that can project a problem to the reelection of those who patently refuse to negotiate other options.
Ask yourself this question. how much harm is there in holding back the healthcare component a couple of years? Cost benefit analysis will tell you that few will be directly affected or succumb over that span of time. However, once this fiscally depleted bill is passed the benefits lost to budget constraints will be permanent and long lasting into the future. Postpone the passage of any healthcare package, in lieu of an equal massive immediate infusion to infrastucture improvements, green sector factorys private sector jobs that will the base support for full employment that will fortify both our economy, health, food supply and our security well into tomorrows millenium. Do you believe that we can"t wait the few years it would take to fill the coffers and refine the current system while new taxes max out potential to the brim so that no compromises are necessary in guaranteeing the type of healthcare system that should be "state of the art" far surpassing above any of its predecessors in other countries that have so far enjoyed its benefits without the proverbial hitches.

Congress is playing us by not addressing the "jobs issue first" coming to the table with fast shrinking and depleted barrel from which they endorse the banking cartel to remain overseer lords enabled to withholdand keep from circulation well over 70% of the collected funds. Should that money have been released as intended with loans granted to qualified private individuals and busineses we would not be looking at this debacle from the short side of the ledger. Banks are showing positives solely because they are hording 100% of the moneys they were autorized by our government to distribute. In reality their ledgers should be only showing single figure increases based only on the money they have loaned out and stand to collect from.
Example: Borrow $20b from the Fed. That money is not yours but it is a consignment from which you draw a percentage. If that figure in loan rates is 7% then your balance sheet should reflect only a maximum of $1billion and change as a positive to cash flow. That is if all the money that has been fronted has been loaned out and under contractual obligation to repay. Go figure.
FUZZY MATH TO THE NTH DEGREE!!!

Yes John jobs should be first priority and Obama is only focusing on the success of the Wall Street CEOs.

Socialism for the wealthiest is the American way.

Obama's Afghanistan policy is also a farce just like Bush and Iraq!

We the people always lose and Wall Street always wins.


=======================

General Sir Richard Dannatt: profile
17 Jul 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/lf35wt
Gen Dannatt had been at the helm for only two months in October 2006 when he made it clear did not intend to keep quiet in his new job, using an interview in the Daily Mail to accuse the Government of abusing the "military covenant" of mutual protection between a nation and its Army.
Despite having held a series of advisory roles within Whitehall as well as a distinguished array of military postings, the 58-year-old has never been one to toe the line. He has repeatedly embarrassed first Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown by criticising the British mission in Iraq, demanding more money and better equipment for the Army and higher pay for his troops.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5850490/General-Sir-Richard-Dannatt-profile.html


============================