The substitution: "Obamacare"--
is disingenuous...

However I find it hard to believe that one can go through life spitting out everyone elses opinions and still not have one of their own.

simply saying you are correct doesnt make it so. I say the color yellow is unconstitutional. The only people that really can dispute constitutionality of things are constitutional experts, typically ACLU lawyers.

Neither author is a constitutional lawyer. David Rivkin is a frightening individual. I read an almost Ayn Rand Paranoia to his work. Only Capitalism is good. Anything that isn't is bad. So as soon as either one of your quoted individuals heads back to law school and gets that degree in Constitutional Law then I'll take it for granted that any problem with publicly paid Insurance can be dealt with in the Federal court system. BTW if they strike down Publicly funded insurance as Unconstitutional then Medicare medicade unemployment insurance and social security are all unconstitutional as well. Good luck with that fight.

Wow... I give up. Unless you can point out which part of the consitution gives congress the power to require people to carry health insurance. No, it is not in the preamble... That was the worst idea yet. Following your logic congress has the power to do anything. Is this what you want? I see no point in continuing this.

I'm not going to bother repeating myself. If you can explain why we have Medicare, medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, and the FDIC maybe we could come to an understanding. I put that out there before and you clearly weren't willing to read that. Health insurance falls under the same auspices of these other fine programs the GOV't created. Tell me again what the difference is between them and universal healthcare

Enact a $1500 tax on everyone making above a certain income level AND make ALL health insurance premiums (not just those paid by employers) fully deductible.

Problem solved... and the self-insured get a (long overdue) break.

simply saying you are correct doesnt make it so. I say the color yellow is unconstitutional. The only people that really can dispute constitutionality of things are constitutional experts, typically ACLU lawyers.

Neither author is a constitutional lawyer. David Rivkin is a frightening individual. I read an almost Ayn Rand Paranoia to his work. Only Capitalism is good. Anything that isn't is bad. So as soon as either one of your quoted individuals heads back to law school and gets that degree in Constitutional Law then I'll take it for granted that any problem with publicly paid Insurance can be dealt with in the Federal court system. BTW if they strike down Publicly funded insurance as Unconstitutional then Medicare medicade unemployment insurance and social security are all unconstitutional as well. Good luck with that fight.

Again?!? declaring something unconstitutional doesnt make it so. FOr example

as stated before ITS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. just becasue you say it doesnt make it so. just keep calling the sky red and we'll know how well you comprehend whats being done

/While the media vilifies those on Wall Street for getting rich at the expense of the rest of us, Gore and his buddies on Capitol Hill are getting kudos for doing worse. In a recent and appallingly obsequious article in The New York Times entitled "Gore's Dual Role: Advocate and Investor," the Times notes that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are also investing heavily in green ventures. Imagine the public outcry if these were Republicans.

heres the peoblem with information. If you don't have it you dont understand it.

During the Great Depression, anyone that was out of work was considered unempolyed. Now if you don't get unemployment benefits and aren't looking anymore you are not considered unemployed. you dont have a job but you aren't unemployed to the gov't. this is a sad way to make the numbers look better than they really are. It also isnt conservative or liberal since both work within the same data set. They just manipulate it the way they choose.

So no lower unemployment claims isn't that good of news. I have yet to see read or hear of any major hiring being done. So yes this is a Jobless recovery.

knowing the history of most of this "storm" and people who have posted here, i am kind of suspicous, however if the consensus is to drop the arguement, that's all i ever asked.

:P

It was dropped until you stirred the pot again. :)

unlikely, From all indications this is a jobless recovery. people aren't getting jobs back and nobody is expanding. So if you are skilled labor, currently unemployed, and looking, you are competing with 6 other people for each job you apply for. This is not a good ratio.

so the unemployed should just get out there and get a job... and quit being lazy?

tell that to the folks still looking for a job

W put a down payment on the financial woes of this country in general. He ignored everything and everyone. Tossed out $600 checks to stimulate the economy. then got himself into not 1 but 2 endless wars. Wars that he refused to have financed by the normal annual means but by emergency spending every couple of months. making his annual budget look lean and mean. In reality it was just mean to try and fool us.

Article I Section 7: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;
That wasn't W.

yes it was. The request for the money comes in the form of the federal budget. WHen the executive dept intentionally fudges about what they need money for it most certainly is theri problem. But then I'd be arguing that the color orange is really not a color but a manifestation of light hitting the rods and cones coating the retina.

Emergency spending was requested quarterly from the W administration to support the war. Its nice to know how things financial start in congress. Its also nice to know that federal depts must request money from congress as part of the budget. Neglecting to ask for money was intentional and also made the budget look lean. The emergency spending is no more than what Obama is doing now. The only difference is that Obama doesnt expect Americans to be so easily fooled by past tactics. Its called being honest. He so far budget wise appears to be so

W put a down payment on the financial woes of this country in general. He ignored everything and everyone. Tossed out $600 checks to stimulate the economy. then got himself into not 1 but 2 endless wars. Wars that he refused to have financed by the normal annual means but by emergency spending every couple of months. making his annual budget look lean and mean. In reality it was just mean to try and fool us.

The results mean that workers at 11 plants representing 16,300 United Auto Workers union members have turned down the deal, compared with approvals at 4 facilities with 6,100 employees. Ford has 41,000 workers represented by the UAW, whose leaders negotiated the accord.

“This never happens. It’s a vote of no confidence in the bargaining committee and a vote of no confidence in Ford,” said Gary Chaison, a labor professor at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts. “To reject a collective agreement at a time of economic difficulty is really a sign of desperation and anger.”

Ford, the only major U.S. automaker to avoid bankruptcy, is seeking concessions similar to those secured this year by General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC. The contract changes include a six-year ban on strikes over wages and benefits and freezing wages of new hires until 2015.

Ford has said it needs the concessions to ensure that it doesn’t have a labor-cost disadvantage against GM and Chrysler, which also unloaded debt and closed plants as part of their restructuring in court.

Chaison said Ford may consider dropping the no-strike clause as a sweetener or adding some other inducement to get a positive result in a new round of balloting.

The automaker’s other option is to punish the UAW by making promised products in Canada or Mexico instead of the U.S., said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

“Where we will see the result of this failure is in a product announcement -- moving some business out that had been planned here,” he said.

when I calculated this out I found that the cost is abot $3000 a year which currently I pay 1/3 or so and the business I work for pays teh remainder. So basically I would have the same insurance as I had before. I want everyone to have at least what I have so lets do this. screw the numbers. We've thrown ourselves into Iraq without taking into account nor caring about the cost. It's about time we did something to level the playing field with the rest of the world on healthcare. American companies need this. We Need this.

"It's not free. ... Someone's going to have to pay for it and you bet it's going to be the taxpayer." --Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) on the "public option"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) unveiled an $894 billion health care takeover bill Thursday; the Congressional Budget Office puts the cost at $1.055 trillion. The bill, a combination of three separate committee bills, should be light reading for our nation's lawmakers, though -- it weighs in at a scant 1,990 pounds, er, pages.

there are several reasons for vaccines being in short supply.
1) very few Companies make the vaccine. making the vaccine is time consuming and expensive to produce. thereby making it not very cost effective(zero gain) for companies that do produce it.
2) didease control scientists making their best guess at which 3 viruses they should produce vaccine for. unfortunately, some years the scientists strikeout and the vaccine is useless Funny thing is that even though we had this happen a few years ago, there was a barrage of ads to get that shot. A shot that did nothing.

The Smashing Pumpkins suggests swine flu "is not a naturally occurring virus," and that "President Obama has declared a national emergency" when "there isn’t one"

After 30 years of destructive deregulation--
we NEED more goverment (re)involvment in MANY areas...

just remember that by owning it it means that we are taking control of it ourselves. Remember that we are the Gov't much to the folks in DC's dismay. So I'd rather have a universal health care as an option.
Honesty I just did my annual insurance renewal at work yesterday and they've increase the cost and reduced services again. the only thing that got better was the generic prescription cost which dropped from $10 to $5. unfortunately this becomes moot when you consider many pharmacies are selling major name generics at $4. My non generics went from $30 to $35. They also listened to my complaints about "non formalary drugs" drugs that are being used as intended but not what they want me to use. they changed the legal name to "non-Preferred"... Jerks.

The powers of congress are laid out in the constitution (article 1, section 8). All other powers are reserved to the states (Amendment X).

It could be argued that a national healthcare plan is a regulation of commerce between the States, Healthcare is a commercial enterprise afterall. Would that qualify such a proposal under the enumerated powers of Congress?

Regulate

to control or direct by a rule, principle, method

To control a commercial enterprise that spans the several states does appear to be implicit in the language of Article 1 Section 8, or am I willfully misreading it? "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;", surely the most control of commerce is achieved by owning the enterprise?

At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today's Americans. Some of the founders' distrust is seen in our Constitution's language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections. After all, one would not expect to find a Bill of Rights in Heaven; it would be an affront to God. Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution. The three branches of our federal government are no longer bound by the Constitution as the framers envisioned and what is worse is American ignorance and acceptance of such rogue behavior. Look at the current debate over government involvement in health, business bailouts and stimulus packages. The debate centers around questions as whether such involvement is a good idea or a bad idea and whether one program is more costly than another. Those questions are entirely irrelevant to what should be debated, namely: Is such government involvement in our lives permissible under the U.S. Constitution? That question is not part of the debate. The American people, along with our elected representatives, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, care less about what is and what is not permissible under our Constitution. They think Congress has the right to do anything upon which they can secure a majority vote, whether they have the constitutional or moral authority to do so or not." --George Mason economics professor Walter E. Williams

the reason they made so many things vague is that they were not able to see the future. They also knew that we'd have to have a bit of breathing room with the document. Had they not wanted people to have something it would have been enumerated.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
http://tinyurl.com/RepuglycansSuck

So you've made my point for me. Congress is allowed to create universal healthcare since it must be provided uniformly and the whole Universal health care arguement is to provide healthcare uniformly. Thanks for the help!!!

I will once again point out that the Constitutions preamble clearly states "to promote the general welfare..." I can't think of anything currenty that would promote the general welfare than Universal health care.

Newspulper Headlines:

You Call This Fair and Balanced?: "O'Reilly Ruins a Good Night for the Canadiens" --National Post (Canada)

Uhhh, the one above has nothing to do with politics...someone (wherever you copied this from) didn't do their fact checking.

O'Reilly Ruins a Good Night for the Canadiens

... There are several reasons:

1) Fuel is not taxed as heavily and is therefore less expensive most of the time.
2) The drives are longer - comfort is more important than mileage.
3) Diesel cars have had a very hard time meeting emissions standards with the diesel fuel available here.
4) The auto manufactures have emphasized power and speed over mileage.
5) The emissions controls required here dramatically reduce mileage.

I strongly suspect the dominant driving factor there is option "4" pushed by malevolent Marketing pushing "Bigger Numbers" to hype up their product. Option "1" permits the marketing conditions to allow "4" to dominate.

The other items there are just excuses. The simple technology for that is in use in Europe now.

My wish list for my next vehicle:
1) Seats 5.
2) Station wagon (lots of room in back).
3) 60 miles on batteries. (apparently not going to get this one)
4) 80+ MPG.

That is easily possible now, and no batteries needed.

To answer the question: I'm afraid not.

His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, went to Washington, but there was nobody there.

That much about the U.S. of A. commitment to human rights. Shame on you, Mr. Obama.

Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot, and it appears that much of the last 550 million years has experienced carbon dioxide concentrations significantly higher than the present day.

I saw Bill Clinton giving a speech on this some time ago. I can't remember his exact words but it was something like this, paraphrasing;

"Protecting the environment needs to be an international effort. Otherwise, emerging economies like India, Turkey, and China are perfectly capable of burning up the world without any help from us".

We should still do our part here, of course. But real change is only going to happen with international cooperation, and there is little guarantee that we can ever achieve that.

are you sure thats not Tina Fey

BTW the RED state ..err outfit she's in certainly is a bargain compared to the nameplates she was wearing during her VP run.
She looks like shes doing an ad for lenscrafters now.
Also, aren't we over the flag pin thing yet? We know where we live and wearing a pin does not denote increased patriotism. It does imply a deep insecurity or a need to constantly be reminded what flag she likes

Meanwhile, we're still cooking, ever faster and sooner:

No rainforest, no monsoon: Get ready for a warmer world

... feedback loops... Brace yourself: the picture painted by the 130 climate researchers at the [recent] Oxford conference is not pretty. An average global increase of 4 °C translates to a rise of up to 15 °C at the North Pole. ...

So much for the old idea of just a paltry "2 °C" from President Bush's to-be-ignored 'warming'... Is this all now truly a burning bush of biblical destruction to smite down all of humanity?!

Positive comment in the (Not) Stupid thread. That is, "if"...

Regards,
Martin

you're also missing the oil and gas that is locked into the earths crust. This comes from many ages. Since hydrocarbons are easier to breakdown than build up its fairly easy to see that methane and propane are likely to be from very old sources. Of couse we do make a bit of methane from storing our garbage but it seems to be minor compared to all the gas stored in the crust

good luck with your pursuits. making global warming/climate change go away seems like a nice endeavour. Perhaps if you would remember that we have and are burning 3 billion years worrth of stored carbon in the last 150 years. somethings got to give and it appears the Climate is whatis going to give.

the scary thought is that we should be using Oil to produce the plastics we are going to need for the solar and other alternate energy sources that we have yet to tap

While I completely agree with the point that Netanyahu is making, both he and the previous Israeli governments have shown little "moral clarity" and even less "honor" for years.

Why put illegals in prison? - Just send them back and tell them to try again LEGALLY! If I do something ILLEGAL I AM PENALIZED in some form.
To not send them back is to admit our laws are free to be ignored - THIS is what needs to be reformed, not just say Since you broke the law and there are so many of you WE FORGIVE YOU!

Putting illegals in prison would not do much good and would cost the country much more than it would save.

In his speech to a joint session of Congress, Obama denied that the plan he envisioned—but conveniently has yet to set to paper—would not allow illegal immigrants to participate, meaning the American people wouldn't have to pay for their healthcare. Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina called the president out on it—and was admonished for doing so by the House, generally along party lines. To the television networks that have covered the story, this makes Obama the hero and Wilson the goat.

Not so fast.

It may be that Obama's eventual plan for healthcare reform won't pay the medical expenses of immigrants here in the United States illegally—but that's because he may also have a not-so-secret plan to make them all citizens.

As Stephen Dinan writes in Friday's Washington Times, the president is saying the healthcare crisis among illegal immigrants is so severe that it constitutes a compelling reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually can have access to healthcare. "Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute in a speech on Wednesday. "That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else."

"If anything," Obama said of the need to reform healthcare in America, "this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

So it turns out that Obama's explanation to Congress and the country about illegal immigrants and healthcare reform isn't quite the same as what he tells his friends when he thinks America isn't watching. As a matter of parsing words and splitting hairs, the distinctions are positively Clintonian in their brilliance. As a matter of public policy they are almost certain to inflame an electorate that is already highly skeptical of his effort to change American healthcare.

So why haven't we seen the new rules?

What new rules? Nothing changed.

I tend to agree with you. The rule about harassing squirrels for no good reason is still in effect.

An article in The Telegraph, a UK paper, says that the Film 'Creation', which is about Charles Darwin, cannot find a distributor in the USA because of opposition from Religious groups.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html

I find this strange for a country for a country where the first amendment to the 'Bill of Rights' basically prohibits religious bias.

Would someone from that part of the world like to explain why, to a simple Englishman.

That a nation would entrust their very lives to corporate pigs and profiteers astounds me.
This was the once in a century opportunity to sieze control of your health and well being away from those who would profit from your misery and pain.

It just so happens people in the US trust doctors and their current insurance providers more than they trust the government. It might be a long time before we have single payer healthcare here. Perhaps our goverment has lied to us too many times?

The fear campaign is proving successful. The public opinion of a public healthcare option while leaving the private sector intact is dismal... and worse than that if you bring up the words, "single payer".

Many Americans are willing to protest for and defend the very system that keeps them down. It's astonishing.

That a nation would entrust their very lives to corporate pigs and profiteers astounds me.
This was the once in a century opportunity to sieze control of your health and well being away from those who would profit from your misery and pain.

I'm still worried about the approximately 1 million homes that are about to be foreclosed upon. This really doesnt bode well for an economy or the people that are supposed to be working at recovering the economy

and he's quite reasonably so. we are getting blindsided by special interest(insurance copmpanies) with out and out lies about what is going to be put into this. I get tired of explaining to folks that Rush, oreilly, and hannity are not credible sources. At best they are unsources. heck for realities sake listen to them and then be assured that the opposite is true.

Since 83, 26 years, same thing.

I'm not talking against the stimulus, just continuing the conversation about whether or not the economy is turning around.

I give up on Americans and the hope for universal single payer healthcare in America.
If you guys can't get your shite together enough for something this important then you are a lost cause.
You may as well just bend over and offer up your rumps to the corporations right now.
What a sad sack bunch you've become since the revolution.

So don't bitch at me for saying this, instead just shut up and take what your masters are giving.

OH CANADA

PS: Those of you living near the border, please stop coming across for free medical treatments and cheaper prescription drugs. I think it's time WE built a damned wall on the border.

Have I made myself clear?

Or do you want more explanation?

Who, as a USA resident, could have a problem with this?
Clint made a statement. Simple but true..........

Illegals.....take heed..........get offfa my lawn.
As it should be in this country.


Grand Torino....

And if this offends you.....so be it.

Lets not forget:

How is remembrance served by argument over the release of a person who in all likelihood was the victim of a miscarriage of justice? Or by attacking the integrity of our allies?

I simply pointed out that the real victims should be remembered. I did not attack anyone or place blame...

Apologies. My comment, while a reply to yours, was directed at other comments in the thread. I should've been clearer.

Lets not forget:

How is remembrance served by argument over the release of a person who in all likelihood was the victim of a miscarriage of justice? Or by attacking the integrity of our allies?

In a 2002 study exploring the relationship between the CRA and lending looked at as predatory, Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be considered a risk for ordinary lending practices. CRA regulated banks may also inadvertently facilitate these lending practices by financing lenders. They also noted that CRA regulations, as then administered and carried out by Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC, did not penalize banks that engaged in these lending practices. They recommended that the federal agencies use the CRA to sanction behavior that either directly or indirectly increased predatory lending practices by lowering the CRA rating of any bank that facilitated in these lending practices.[95]

The FDIC has tried to address this issue by "stopping abusive practices through the examination process and supervisory actions; encouraging banks to serve all members and areas of their communities fairly; and providing information and financial education to help consumers make informed choices". FDIC policy currently states that "predatory lending can have a negative effect on a bank's CRA performance."[96]

Don't have a quick link to post, but several commentators in Canada have recently noted that the home owner real estate market has clearly bottomed and is rebounding, but commercial real estate continues to drop monthly. Possibly a sign of the reluctance of banks to loan to businesses, while home prices had reached an unrealistic low, and the banks are now ready to once again take on the risk of having to repossess your house. At least, here in Canada.

Another, indirect,indication that the economy is at least bottoming, if not even heading back up.

BMO results buoy TSX

It was the private sector that got us into this mess and I think that overall we need more regulation to help ensure that this doesn't happen in the future, or continue to keep happening.

Private entities should not have so much control over so many peoples' lives. Many that want the government to stay out of things take the perspective of not wanting control being levied over them, but still fail to realize that there will always be control; either in the private sector or from the government. Short of public ownership, it will either be private enterprise or government in control. Considering the state of affairs, there needs to be diversified control.

That means private enterprise is allowed to continue, but with strict government oversight and regulation in place.

Here is another economic indicator to add to the mix. Interesting that the story expressely states that retail sales "don't lead the recovery like the stock market, but are considered by economists to be an important economic indicator."

You also believe that the unemployment rate is the best way to measure the health of an economy.

I believe that no single factor is all telling. But I also know that many economists judge the economy based on employment and unemployment rates. I can provide many links which I'm sure you're not interested in, but if I'm wrong, let me know and I'll post as many as you like, including essays where unemployment is being used as the biggest factor in describing a current economic situation.

Thank you for the last part of your post. That is more in line with the topic at hand. I would; however, recommend holding on to your investments for a longer period of time and diversifying a bit. Perhaps a few stocks in each major market sector.

Why? If I were doing this I'd have even less money now. The one and only reason that I made most of my money back was not trying to ride things out. You're talking about standard long term investment strategies used in a regular market during a financial crisis. Besides, when you're only dealing with $3000, diversification involves too much overhead. To do what you're talking about would involve an initial 5-8% loss just on brokerage fees and the bid/ask spread alone, not to mention having to jump out of some bad ones driving the costs up higher. If I wanted to take a blind, shotgun approach and ride it as long as I can, I'll just go to a casino and play blackjack with it where the house only has a 2% advantage.

However, in a normal market your advice makes sense. But right now, that isn't working for anyone.

Most of the growth in the market is based upon normal ebb and flows, and hype. A falling GDP and rising unemployment (they go hand in hand) does not account for real economic growth in the market. Let me give you a good example;
AMD shares are up 9% right now. Out of the blue. But why? Because Citigroup changed their status from "hold" to "buy". Why did they do this? Because they DISAGREE with AMD's own conservative earnings estimates. That's right, AMD posts conservative estimates, and C comes around and says, "nah, it's too conservative". People buy, demand increases, shares go up. But what growth has taken place? None, yet anyway.

And that's my point. If you want to make money in the market right now, you've got to play the hype. If on the other hand you want to take the traditional investment strategy with a falling GDP and rising unemployment while still on the back end of a recession, then maybe, in a few years, you could weather the storm. Or not... ask those that held WAMU or Wachovia, or General Motors, or Bear Stearns... or me, that is down on mcz for $800 or Cross Atlantic Commodities for $400 that never came back.

The long term, diversified approach wins when there is real, substantiated, maintained growth. That is not happening right now though. If we consider $1100 to be my initial investment (because that's when I started "playing" the market), then I have an almost 200% gain overall, and at that rate close to 1000% return annually (which is a bit unrealistic because I'd have to continue being very lucky and the economic situation would have to remain exactly as it is now which is unlikely). The best mutual funds (diversified, long term investment funds) in a bull market get you 13-15% annually. I'll stick with what I'm doing for now.

Oh and hey; I'm not trying to attack you or fight, just discuss/debate civilly. If I've come off harsh, it was not my intention. I also got to the thread kind of late and ended up commenting on several things in the thread after the fact. But seriously, my only intention is to have a stimulating discussion, not offend, so if I have I apologize. Best wishes!

Lastly, this thread is about the Economy turning around, not the proper use of economic indicators.

How are you going to discuss the economy without discussing economic indicators?

The Gross Domestic Product is used to measure economic activity and thus is both procyclical and a coincident economic indicator. The Implicit Price Deflator is a measure of inflation. Inflation is procyclical as it tends to rise during booms and falls during periods of economic weakness. Measures of inflation are also coincident indicators. Consumption and consumer spending are also procyclical and coincident.

The unemployment rate is a lagged, countercyclical statistic. The level of civilian employment measures how many people are working so it is procyclic. Unlike the unemployment rate it is a coincident economic indicator.

I take August sales with a grain of salt. You have back to school sales and the Cash for clunkers which sold 450,000 cars. they 2 thing will probably skew these numbers. I'd even bet the numbers look great against the aug 08 numbers

just and FYI the post office also has a self check out for letters/packages. This eliminates the need to wait on one of the semi warm bodies to take care of your postal needs.

Is the "maybe" part of keeping ones health insurance the latest neocon talking point. I've yet to read or hear anything about this. I've even heard Obama speak funny how when you actually here it straight from the horses mouth you're less likely to get a different answer.

Premium is just that. Subjective to ones own needs. for the 43 million without any insurance coverage I'd call the public plan a Premium.

Heck I could spend 2X what I currently pay to get the top level insurance at my work. what would I save? $5 for an office visit and $500 annually out of pocket expense. that hardly seems like a savings. spend an extra $100 a month to save less than half the cost.

Funny thing...lots of people here are out of work (I'm blessed to be stable in my work) but I'm seeing lots of part-time jobs available. Some which pay *EXTREMELY* well for part-time standards.

I know people need benefits and all but isn't SOME job better than none??

The competition that Mr. Obama envisions between government and private insurance companies won't be fair. Many proposed regulations, such as eliminating caps on what insurance companies will pay out or preventing insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, will eliminate private insurance. But even if the government only tilts the playing field partially in favor of a government insurance plan, making it artificially cheaper, a lot of Americans will give up their private insurance to save money. Government insurance gradually will take over, and service will deteriorate." --The Washington Times

Well now, this is lame.

The point that the President was making was that those who want to keep their "cadillac" private insurance 1) would be able to, and 2) yes, private insurers will be able to do so at a profit.

Using the USPS and FedEx was, in fact, a good example. As part of my job, I send legal documents all over the country. Some are extremely time sensitive and some are not. With the USPS and FedEx, I am given a reasonable choice between exceptional speed and reliability vs. price. If I send a letter from NC to Los Angeles that 'absolutely positively' needs to be there the next day with up to the minute web=based tracking, I spend the $24.25 to send it by FedEx. If I need it there the next day with less accurate tracking, I can use Express Mail for $17.50. if I am sending a routine follow up, I can do so by traditional "snail mail" for 44 cents. The end result is the same.

FedEx and UPS continue to do well because they meet a specific need at a price point people are willing to pay. If private health insurance plans provide
premium service at a reasonable price, their customers will want to stay with them, too.

Unfortunately, the 40 Million plus Americans who are currently living without health insurance and those who cannot afford the high premiums currently have no other choices. As a result, they wind up in emergency rooms with no ability to pay jacking up the costs for those of us with insurance when we get sick.

A lot of the Canadian papers and TV commentators seem to have a hard time grasping that "recession" has a formal definition (two consecutive quarters of economic shrinkage), and the end of the recession only means that the terms of the definition are no longer strictly met. They apparently think the economy has only two possible states, "Recession" and "everything is just swell".

In fact, the recession is over here, but that just means the economy has moved from sucks extremely to simply sucks. Slightly less hard times are still here, and will be for awhile.

I would think that the people that currently can't afford insurance and want it will benefit in 2 ways. The lowering of cost from private insurers and the public plans (hopefully) low cost

what do you want for 43 cents

A letter returned for insufficient postage.

It's 44 cents. :)

The USPS easily has the toughest management job around. By law, they must provide services whether profitable or not. Demand for their most basic service - the first class letter - is in a steep decline. Nobody writes letters anymore AND mailed bill payments are being replaced with online payments. The recession has cut direct mail advertising and credit card reform has cut direct mail offers.

In the past two weeks, there have been several days that I have received no mail at all. Nothing. Yet the truck must drive by my mailbox 6 days a week to make sure I haven't mailed out anything.

Somebody could get a Ph.D. doing a dissertation on how the USPS manages to survive from 2008-2011.

not if you have the forever stamp. what a wonderful thing they thought up. A stamp that will hold current value no matter how long you keep it. thats better than a savings bond. Oh and BTW they saved $millions by starting up the Forever stamp. providing 1-3 cent stamps cost more to produce than they were worth.
Canadian stamp prices about 49 cents
UK letter rate.0.39p about 64 cents
[url=http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/DF_postal.shtml#GeneralDelivery[/url]french rates[url] .56 euros. or about 79 cents
[/url=http://www.post.japanpost.jp/english/fee/domestic/letter.html]japanese rates[url] 80 yen or about 85 cents.
all rates are for in country delivery. Seems the US is doing pretty well at keeping the postal costs down. lets not forget that the US has a bit more territory to cover than all the countries mentioned. Not a bad deal indeed

all rates are in their national rate and converted to the current us/nation exchange rates.[/url]

Yes, there is a lag. That doesn't diminish the importance of GDP growth though.

And isn't this how they didn't see we were in a recession. If I recall the stock market tanked, unemployment skyrocketed, sales tax revenue dropped, corporate profits(outside exxon/bp) tanked. then several months later we heard the GDP dropped that seems and is a bit late out of the gate.

we are a consumer economy. unemployed people not only hurt but the economy hurts with them. when Unemployment rises people buy less and therefore the economy falters. so yes the employment rate is a wonderful indicator of how the economy is doing.

The Gross Domestic Product is used to measure economic activity and thus is both procyclical and a coincident economic indicator. The Implicit Price Deflator is a measure of inflation. Inflation is procyclical as it tends to rise during booms and falls during periods of economic weakness. Measures of inflation are also coincident indicators. Consumption and consumer spending are also procyclical and coincident.

The unemployment rate is a lagged, countercyclical statistic. The level of civilian employment measures how many people are working so it is procyclic. Unlike the unemployment rate it is a coincident economic indicator.

SK:

1) I never "blamed" Republicans. As you correctly point out, the problem is the gutless Senate Democrats. Sadly, many of them have been taking contributions from the insurance industry for years, particularly in states (like mine) with health insurance companies that cover a significant majority in the state. In North Carolina, one company covers 71% of all policies. Our Republican senator is so deep in their pocket he has to look past their socks to see daylight.

2) You are also correct that the most recent (today) NBC/WSJ poll shows that "...support for a government-run public insurance plan that would compete with private insurers slipped slightly from 46 percent to 43 percent."

"The poll of 805 Americans was taken from Saturday to Monday and has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points." While significant, this is hardly a "sea change".

The poll also showed that "...misconceptions about the plan were widespread, however, with 55 percent saying it would give health coverage to illegal immigrants and 45 percent saying it would let the government decide when to stop care for the elderly. Both are untrue."

This tells me that the blitz of misinformation media campaigns, "extremist commentators" (to borrow Dr. Reinhardt's term) and the "Town Howl Meetings" are currently succeeding in scaring people. This uncertainty will continue until a firm plan emerges from Congress and the Administration.

I think uncertainty as you put it has a major efffect on public opinion. There will always be a fear of the unknown. Plus, people who oppose the plan probably are the same people who have employers that provide good insurance. Only time will tell...

surprisingly not. Many of the folks are already receiving the "socialized" medicine we call Medicare. Seems the misinformation has hit them as well. BTW I have really good insurance from my work. I am still greatly interested in seeing what can be done with the uninsured and expensively insured folks. I tend to think beyond my own nose. This will benefit everyone. Does anyone ever consider that the folks with no insurance or bad insurance spend a great deal of money at the ER for things that could have easily been taken care of at a GP's office. Given the expense we are all already burdened with it only makes sense to get something Gov't sponsored so that everyone can get decent healthcare in this country, drive down prices and leave the ER for real emergencies not for easily treated illnesses that could have been covered without an expensive trip to the ER.

as reported a few weeks ago from the white house, it may take years to get jobs back to where they were before.
It's inevitable that Businesses are going to be extremely cautious for the near future. I don't see a recovery I still see a great deal of people that are getting even more desperate.

Just an FYI decreases in unemployment claims can man 2 things
1) people are getting back to work, or
2) people have run out of benefits and are no longer considered unemployed.

This is the trick in the system. They've changed the playing field and nobody noticed. back in the great depression, if you were able to work and you didn't have a job you were unemployed. today if you are able to work and are not receiveing unemployment benefits you are not counted. So if they say the number is 7, 8 ,9% then guaranteed its higher than that

Guys, if you're going to use an online blog, journal, or article, for a post, that's fine. Have the courtesy (for the author and reader) to cite your source. I, for one, prefer to know whether I'm having a discussion with an individual or the Patriot Post, the Huffington Post, or some other "authoritative" <cough> source.

Muchas gracias.

I have learned that this leads to attacks on the source and the subject being ignored. imo...

If you agree with the subject matter; fine. If you do not; fine. I often find there is no "right or wrong" just shades of gray.

Have a nice weekend!

It's never been an attack on the source.

It's been asking for you and others to provide your opinion as well as the sources. It's never enough to just post someone elses opinion. Your opinion matters.

do you agree/disagree with the source piece. I can either assume the person you've posted is either annoying to you or in line with your thoughts. either way its nice to see who provided what and hear/read what you think. As I've said before I get what the opinion writer gets when the write what they write. Unfortunately I don't get to understand you, the poster, and why you thought the piece was important. the idea here is to be transparent about the sources because I'd find a pro jim crow law piece placed by an anonymous source more suspect than one from the Heritage foundation. BTW I don't think there is a pro jim crow law group but I could be wrong.
Also not quoting a source is tantamount to plagerism. you claim the words as your own. I know the intent is to provide a topic. the essence is that you've stolen someones work.

So let's see: Government-run health care = the Post Office. And this is supposed to make us feel good about the idea?

It's really something to watch. If he keeps "advocating" for HC reform like this, we'll end up losing Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid as well as HC reform.

"According to President Obama, government health insurance will create competition in the health insurance industry. ... During a town hall meeting last week at Portsmouth, N.H., Mr. Obama pointed to the U.S. Postal Service as evidence that private companies don't need to worry about competition from the government. 'If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the post office that's always having problems.' If the president considers the Postal Service as an example, we should all be scared. The Postal Service is a classic example of both inefficiency and extreme monopoly power. The Postal Service has staunchly resisted competition from UPS and FedEx since their infancy. ... Despite numerous advantages that FedEx and UPS could only dream of having, the Postal Service loses money. In addition to direct subsidies, the Postal Service is exempt from paying state sales, property and income taxes. It uses some of the most expensive real estate in the country rent-free. Perhaps Mr. Obama has not noticed, but nobody else but the Postal Service is allowed to deliver regular first-class mail, and only the Postal Service has access to Americans' mailboxes. The Postal Service has not managed to kill off UPS and FedEx because these private companies have better on-time delivery and much lower costs. But that is not because the government postal business did not try to squeeze out the competition. ... The competition that Mr. Obama envisions between government and private insurance companies won't be fair. Many proposed regulations, such as eliminating caps on what insurance companies will pay out or preventing insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, will eliminate private insurance. But even if the government only tilts the playing field partially in favor of a government insurance plan, making it artificially cheaper, a lot of Americans will give up their private insurance to save money. Government insurance gradually will take over, and service will deteriorate." --The Washington Times

SK:

1) I never "blamed" Republicans. As you correctly point out, the problem is the gutless Senate Democrats. Sadly, many of them have been taking contributions from the insurance industry for years, particularly in states (like mine) with health insurance companies that cover a significant majority in the state. In North Carolina, one company covers 71% of all policies. Our Republican senator is so deep in their pocket he has to look past their socks to see daylight.

2) You are also correct that the most recent (today) NBC/WSJ poll shows that "...support for a government-run public insurance plan that would compete with private insurers slipped slightly from 46 percent to 43 percent."

"The poll of 805 Americans was taken from Saturday to Monday and has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points." While significant, this is hardly a "sea change".

The poll also showed that "...misconceptions about the plan were widespread, however, with 55 percent saying it would give health coverage to illegal immigrants and 45 percent saying it would let the government decide when to stop care for the elderly. Both are untrue."

This tells me that the blitz of misinformation media campaigns, "extremist commentators" (to borrow Dr. Reinhardt's term) and the "Town Howl Meetings" are currently succeeding in scaring people. This uncertainty will continue until a firm plan emerges from Congress and the Administration.

Frightening future if health reform fails
by Uwe Reinhardt
James Madison professor of political economy at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School

It doesn't surprise me at all that GS came out and said the recovery is on, since IMO they are part of what I consider to be the "money grab". There is an interesting video about some of what has happened currently in what was described by William K. Black ( the former litigation director of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board who investigated the Savings and Loan disaster of the 1980s) as a vast transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class.

Don’t Ask: Don’t Tell This Economic Disaster

It's a jobless recovery. The truth is jobs are still being lost at a rate of tens of thousands a month in the states.
The controllers of information, who have all increased their personal fortunes during this time, would like us to believe that our troubles are over because the job losses have slowed down.
There is no recovery. The patient is still bleeding.

Goldman sachs can say the recession is over that way they can start handing out massive bonuses to the uber rich while those that lost their jobs can get warm by the light of their sterno can in their new cardboard condo.

News From the Swamp: Deficit Continues to Climb
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced that the federal budget deficit reached $1.3 trillion in July after having grown $181 billion last month alone. That puts the deficit on track to hit the projected $1.8 trillion for fiscal year 2009 that ends Sept. 30. Individual and corporate tax receipts are partially to blame, having fallen 17 percent since this point last year, thanks in large part to the recession. Increased government spending has been the heavy hitter, though. The billions of dollars of taxpayer money thrown at banks, the automobile industry, unemployment and the ever-growing Medicare and Medicaid entitlements have added $530 billion to this year's budget, a 21 percent increase over last year. Congress and the White House appear undisturbed by this news, however. Instead of cutting spending, the Democrats want to add a $1 trillion health care plan to our liabilities.

The Treasury Department's answer to handling the debt is not to reduce spending but to raise the national debt ceiling above its current $12.1 trillion. Sure, why not? Secretary Timothy Geithner suggested that Congress should raise the limit "so that citizens and investors here and around the world can remain [get this] confident that the United States will always meet its obligations." Geithner, who knows a thing or two about avoiding tax obligations, did not explain just how ignoring government debt limits in order to push more frivolous spending is supposed to instill confidence in the American economy.

The BIG lie #2:

"We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors. ... AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?" --Barack Obama

Scratch that. AARP Chief Operating Officer Tom Nelson issued a statement saying, "While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."

More on Obamacare:

"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." --Barack Obama, in a rare moment of truth-telling, arguing that a public option won't force private insurance out of business

So let's see: Government-run health care = the Post Office. And this is supposed to make us feel good about the idea?

try and send a stamped envelope from any other country than the US for less money than the USPS charges for a letter. YOu can't THe post office attempts to run as a not for profit organization. when things that are out of their control cause their costs to rise significantly,like gas prices, then you get a rise in the cost for stamps. UPS and fedEx don't advertise that they are forced to raise prices. THe USPS is, if i'm not mistaken, made to request to raise prices from the government this makes news. UPS and FEDEX raises prices as they need and that doesnt make the news

Guys, if you're going to use an online blog, journal, or article, for a post, that's fine. Have the courtesy (for the author and reader) to cite your source. I, for one, prefer to know whether I'm having a discussion with an individual or the Patriot Post, the Huffington Post, or some other "authoritative" <cough> source.

Muchas gracias.

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” - Obama

"Ever since Congress created Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, health politics has followed a simple logic: Expand benefits and talk about controlling costs. That's the status quo, and Obama faithfully adheres to it. While denouncing skyrocketing health spending, he would increase it by extending government health insurance to millions more Americans." --columnist Robert Samuelson

"[Barack] Obama seems to think the country owes it to him to accept ObamaCare because he was kind enough to agree to be our president." --Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto

In a way, I think Bush should have raised taxes in order to pay for his crusade against terror. Yet I am pretty sure he would not have been able to pass a tax hike (many in congress were up for re-election). The current deficit spending started years ago. And yet instead of going down, deficits are going up! While it might not be the fault of any one person or party; what are we going to do about it?

Stormy, I get nervous when you and I agree on anything. :)

It was sheer stupidity to deficit finance not one, but TWO wars! We wouldn't be in the mess we are now if Bush had just gone to the American people after 9/11 and said "We need to go after these bastards, so I'm suspending the tax cuts." You know what? Congress would have backed him. Virtually every American would have gladly supported him. I would have, for sure. Instead, he cooked the books by counting war costs off budget as "emergency appropriations" and left our kids holding the bag.

"Few of President Obama's 2008 campaign pledges were more definitive than his vow that anyone making less than $250,000 a year 'will not see their taxes increase by a single dime' if he was elected. And he was right, very strictly speaking: It's going to be many, many, many billions of dimes. Asked about raising taxes on the middle class on Sunday on CBS's 'Face the Nation,' White House economist Larry Summers wouldn't repeat Mr. Obama's pre-election promise. 'It is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what,' Mr. Summers said -- except, apparently, when his boss is running for office. Meanwhile, on ABC's 'This Week,' Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also slid around Mr. Obama's vow and said, 'We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically. And that's going to require some very hard choices.' These aren't even nondenial denials. The Obama advisers are laying the groundwork for taxing the middle class while claiming the deficit made them do it. ... In an editorial on February 26, 'The 2% Illusion,' we wrote that the feds could take 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning more than $500,000 and still have raised only $1.3 trillion even in the boom year of 2006. The rich are fewer and less rich now, while the Obama budget is nearly $4 trillion. Democrats already plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but that won't raise enough money. So they're proposing an income tax surcharge on 'the wealthy,' but that won't raise enough either. Democrats have no choice but to soak the middle class because only they have enough money to finance the liberal dream of yoking the middle class to cradle-to-grave government entitlements." --The Wall Street Journal

Whats really funny is businesses love the idea of gov't helth insurance. Ask any international corporation and they'll tell you that its cheaper to run their business in countries outside the US because the COmpany isn't footing the bill for health insurance. They all pay but not like they were under the US style plan. Simply put the resistance to gov't health care is merely a plitical ploy. the only folks that don't really want it are Insurance companies and their Conservative lackeys in Congress that are being paid to drag their feet, stomp their feet and become obstructionists to a program that will save every WORKING person money.

We might need such a plan and it might work as intended. But is it prudent to borrow money in order to pay for it? (by selling bonds) Shouldn't we pass something that is fully funded? Obama's plan (according to the white house) will add over 1 trillion to the national debt. I have not read the 1000+ page bill, and I doubt anyone here has. (who has that much free time?) So who really know what is in there?

Secondly, if the democrats wanted to pass something, they could do it without a single republican vote. So I would stop blaming republicans for the faults of congreess if I were you. If the democrats stood together, there would be no problem.

who is borrowing money. I am willing to bet the insurance will be taken out of our checks when we receive our checks. Someones been listening to the Neocon AM stations again. Nobody said they were reinventing the wheel. I currently pay about 1.5% of my check towards Medicare. wouldn't it be just as easy to charge me 3-4% and have my insurance covered

"You note that the socialized medicine bill is over 1,000 pages. The Declaration of Independence is two pages, and the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is about a dozen pages. Proves that if you can't dazzle them with brilliance you baffle them with bovine manure." --Cheyenne, Wyoming

Whats really funny is businesses love the idea of gov't helth insurance. Ask any international corporation and they'll tell you that its cheaper to run their business in countries outside the US because the COmpany isn't footing the bill for health insurance. They all pay but not like they were under the US style plan. Simply put the resistance to gov't health care is merely a plitical ploy. the only folks that don't really want it are Insurance companies and their Conservative lackeys in Congress that are being paid to drag their feet, stomp their feet and become obstructionists to a program that will save every WORKING person money.

"The administration has fulfilled a promise to cut spending by trimming $100 million from the 2009 budget. That's right -- $100 million with an 'm,' an imponderably small slice of this year's expenditures. Back in April, the White House stressed that President Obama, during his first Cabinet meeting, 'made clear that relentlessly cutting out waste was part and parcel of their mission to make the investments necessary for recovery and long-term stability.' Department heads were 'to identify at least $100 million in additional cuts to their administrative budgets.' Three months later, he has gotten his wish: The White House announced on Monday that the goal has been reached. To say such a cut is negligible is an exaggeration in the extreme. To fit that description, a cut first has to be visible. Though it was initially promoted as a seminal moment, this cut doesn't come close to meeting even the most reachable of benchmarks. In fiscal 2009, our federal government will spend nearly $4 trillion, according to the Office of Management and Budget's historical tables. The $100 million cut represents 0.0025% -- less than one one-hundredth of 1% -- of those outlays. ... Now, thanks to the administration's 'relentless' belt-tightening, the deficit will be $1.79999 trillion rather than $1.8 trillion." --Investor's Business Daily

I like my private medical insurance the way it is. If Obama would like to pay my share of the premium he's more than welcome to. Strange how he hasn't made the offer.

"President Obama is pushing Congress to pass health care legislation that could nationalize as much as 10 percent of the economy. Most members of Congress will vote on this bill with no idea what's in it. Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, disparaged lawmakers for even pretending to read the laws they pass. 'I love these members, they get up and say, "Read the bill,"' he said last week at the National Press Club. 'What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you've read the bill?' Mr. Conyers might think it's an antiquated notion that congressmen actually read legislation, but it is the most fundamental responsibility of elected representatives to know and understand laws and how they will affect the lives of their constituents. That is especially the case with such a gargantuan bill. The House version creates 53 new federal bureaucracies with everything from a Health Choices Administration to a Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund to a Health Benefits Advisory Committee. Thirty-three entitlement programs are created or expanded. The notion is put to rest that government might cooperate with doctors and patients to work out what is best for providing care. The health care bill uses the assertive word 'shall' 1,683 times. These passages are government mandates that force doctors, consumers and others in the health care profession to do what Congress orders. The word 'penalty' is used 156 times for those who don't follow orders. 'Tax' is referred to 172 times. Mr. Conyers is right about one thing: A legal education would come in handy when reading through this legislation. The bill is 1,018 pages long, very complicated and surely will cause legal disputes about its meaning for years to come." --The Washington Times

Name 1 thing ANY government does well?? besides taking your money!!

Police, firefighters, national parks, NASA, water and sewer, garbage collection, defence, health and safety, health regulations...Developement of telecommunications, television, radio, computers ...highways, border inspection,
there's more but you get the idea.

I agree, governments are responsible for police, fire, public transportation and protection from other nation states or groups. Governments should not be in the business of providing services or developing technology such as "telecommunications, television, radio, (and) computers". Private industry does a much better job. The point is government should do what it does best and private industry should do what it does best.

Sorry but without the govt(military) developing most things we take for granted today we'd be spending exponentially more had it been left to a private company. You are correct that Private companies do things well. They take gov't project and provide civilian products out of them.

Perhaps columnist Ann Coulter put it best when she quipped, "All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink."

Ah, so Ann Coulter was a self-proclaimed expert on economics and health care last week. This week, I'm sure she'll come forth as an expert on race relations. After all, she is a lawyer.

I'll take that drink. I hope it's a strong one.

Ann Coulter: the answer to the question, "what's the name of the person that can find fault with everything she doesnt agree with and never questions anything she adamantly believes in?"

Name 1 thing ANY government does well?? besides taking your money!!

Police, firefighters, national parks, NASA, water and sewer, garbage collection, defence, health and safety, health regulations...Developement of telecommunications, television, radio, computers ...highways, border inspection,
there's more but you get the idea.

I'll take that drink. I hope it's a strong one.

Regarding Obama and the Cambridge Police Department, you may recall that between 1989-1991, while a student at Harvard, Obama received 17 citations for offenses like parking in a bus-loading zone (how insensitive to those who must rely on public transportation). According to the Associated Press, Obama's citations and late fees were paid by somebody "two weeks before he officially launched his presidential campaign." I suppose he thought those citations were the result of racial profiling and thus, did not need paying.

"Politicians can throw rhetoric around about 'bringing down the cost of health care' or they can even throw numbers around. But the numbers that politicians are throwing around don't match the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office finds when it analyzes the hard data. An old advertising slogan said, 'Progress is our most important product.' With politicians, confusion is their most important product. They confuse bringing down the price of medical care with bringing down the cost. ... Nothing is easier than for governments to impose price controls. They have been doing this, off an on, for thousands of years -- repeatedly resulting in (1) shortages, (2) quality deterioration and (3) black markets. Why would anyone want any of those things when it comes to medical care?" --Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell

Is there anything new on the convoy? Have any news outlets picked up the story?

From what I have read the Afghan army is mostly at fault (allegedly). Is this true ?

Thank you Kasule for the pictures!

National Public Radio featured this story today - this morning in fact. You can check out their website to hear a replay.

More people disapprove than approve of Obama on four domestic issues: the economy, taxes, health care and the federal budget deficit. He scores majority approval on handling Iraq, Afghanistan and foreign affairs.

The biggest drop has been on his handling of the economy, down 12 points since February; his disapproval is up 19 points. The most erosion has come not from Republicans or independents but among his own Democrats. Support from conservative and moderate Democrats is down by 18 points. Another group in the party's political base — those earning $20,000 to $50,000 a year — had a drop of 15 percentage points, to 47%.

Fiscal responsibility is unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of 'allies' like France is unacceptable …A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator. …When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation – that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years.--former Georgia Democrat Sen. Zell Miller

That's funny because Reagan's "Voodoo Economics" didn't work, and he eventually raised taxes.

A balanced federal budget does not work? These deficits are gonig to drive interest rates up and devalue our currency. It is only a matter of time.

How did Reagan balance the federal budget? By raising taxes. What did your quote say?

"It's about time we constitutionally mandate the Federal Government to do what every American family must do, and that is balance its budget. That doesn't mean taking more out of your pocket by raising taxes. ... We the people, deserve to know that our jobs, paychecks, homes, and pensions are safe from the taxers and regulators of big government." --Ronald Reagan

Everything he said in the quote he ended up doing the opposite.

So that makes it right? We shouldn't have a balanced budget because Raegan never did ? How does that make sense ?

I don't think you're actually getting what I'm saying. I'm not arguing in favor or against what anyone is doing, I'm simply arguing with the quote you posted and from whom you posted it. I'm pointing out that using someone's words who turned out to be a liar doesn't do well for the point you are trying to get across.

In effect changing the subject? Bush should have thoulght of that when he was president...

Not really, no. Not any more than you bringing up Reagan in the first place as changing the subject.

You mentioned him and quoted him, I put out a thought on your comment. Isn't that how forums work?

That's funny because Reagan's "Voodoo Economics" didn't work, and he eventually raised taxes.

A balanced federal budget does not work? These deficits are gonig to drive interest rates up and devalue our currency. It is only a matter of time.

How did Reagan balance the federal budget? By raising taxes. What did your quote say?

"It's about time we constitutionally mandate the Federal Government to do what every American family must do, and that is balance its budget. That doesn't mean taking more out of your pocket by raising taxes. ... We the people, deserve to know that our jobs, paychecks, homes, and pensions are safe from the taxers and regulators of big government." --Ronald Reagan

Everything he said in the quote he ended up doing the opposite.

So that makes it right? We shouldn't have a balanced budget because Raegan never did ? How does that make sense ?

I don't think you're actually getting what I'm saying. I'm not arguing in favor or against what anyone is doing, I'm simply arguing with the quote you posted and from whom you posted it. I'm pointing out that using someone's words who turned out to be a liar doesn't do well for the point you are trying to get across.

That's funny because Reagan's "Voodoo Economics" didn't work, and he eventually raised taxes.

A balanced federal budget does not work? These deficits are gonig to drive interest rates up and devalue our currency. It is only a matter of time.

How did Reagan balance the federal budget? By raising taxes. What did your quote say?

"It's about time we constitutionally mandate the Federal Government to do what every American family must do, and that is balance its budget. That doesn't mean taking more out of your pocket by raising taxes. ... We the people, deserve to know that our jobs, paychecks, homes, and pensions are safe from the taxers and regulators of big government." --Ronald Reagan

Everything he said in the quote he ended up doing the opposite.

That's funny because Reagan's "Voodoo Economics" didn't work, and he eventually raised taxes.

Addressing greenhouse gas emissions through CCS (carbon capture and storage) would, like any other response, have its own social costs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed to regulate geologic storage of CO2 to protect drinking water. Other concerns include fouling or making inaccessible other underground resources, property damage, trespass, atmospheric escape and the potential for personal injury. While carbon capture technologies have been used for years in other contexts, and humanity has long experience pumping fluids and gases, including CO2, underground, CCS as envisioned would constitute a new activity. In the world today there are three “large-scale” CCS facilities, sequestering on the order of 1 million tons of CO2 per year. Just among coal-fired electric generating units, and not counting industrial facilities that use fossil fuels for other purposes, the United States alone would require perhaps 2,500 large-scale sites to store emissions. The footprint of each such site is likely to be measured in dozens of square miles.

bear in mind that obama has to ruin economy which was ruined by bush.

NATO has alleged that the Taliban have used civilians as human shields. As an example, NATO pointed to the victims of NATO airstrikes in Farah province in May 2009 in which the Afghan government claimed up to 150 civilians were killed. NATO stated that it had evidence that the Taliban forced civilians into buildings likely to be targeted by NATO aircraft involved in the battle. US Lieutenant Colonel Greg Julian, a spokesman for NATO's Afghanistan commander, General David D. McKiernan, said of the Taliban's tactics, "This was a deliberate plan by the Taliban to create a civilian casualty crisis. These were not human shields; these were human sacrifices. We have intelligence that points to this. Patient after patient just kept telling the doctors their story and how they were forced by the Taliban to stay in these locations."

Neither site shows anything related to Foreign aid. The entire premise of this thread was to stop foreign aid for 30 days. Yet you've not provided one shread of evidence to counter anything I've said other than saying the military is providing foreign aid. Ya know there's really no point to showing you facts you are convinced you know better than actual evidence. so I'll leave you with your thoughts

I say legalize the crap out of it. I'd leave the options for job termination for cannabis use intact. If an employer wishes to have a drug free environment then they have the right to fire individuals that can not or will not stop using cannabis. I'd hate to think I'd be going into surgery while the nurses were toking up in the next room. there are jobs where we can have folks using cannabis and it won't matter. Walmart greeter,or walmart cashier come to mind. pretty much anything that requires thinking would put an employer on the offensive against it. With the labor laws as they are you can't come to work drunk so it should go with Pot

in your simplified world we hand money over to others without oversight. Thats a bit short sighted. The money handed out is sent for specific projects. Fail to do the projects and the money flow stops. Its not like an african nation, for example, comes to the US gov't saying they need $5 billion to make their country whole. The US puts stipulations on every dime that goes out. Its the same if you get a car loan. The bank doesnt just hand you money and assume you are running to the car dealer to get your vehicle. they actually do some ground work to see if these "needy" countries are actually going to use the money for infrastructure or to commint genecide on a minority population in the country. Yes the US gov't sells a crap load of arms to other countries. Money that endears the countries to the US because we also get to supply the replacement parts since the chinese and soviet era equipment isnt compatible with US equipment.

http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/ the site for us foreign aid through the State dept. the last thing mentioned is humanitarian aid. Foreign aid is not a military assistance program as assumed by you. its a structured measured assistance to program with the intent of improving the lives of people of foreign countries for the same reasons I've mentioned before. should I tell you them again?

We already had a president that, as the decider, decided that diplomacy was insulting as many countries as possible for 8 years. Now we get to mend fences. Cutting aid off is really not going to make us a good neighbor on this world. Had we a world where we could just be by ourselves we could ignore everything that isnt us. We dont have that luxury. I'll state it again in case you didnt read it the first few times.

If you don't improve things over there. They bring their problems over here.

The cheapest most efficient way to help ourselves is to help others in their own country. Imagine the number of imigrants that would be heading here had we not assisted in peoples native lands.

I'm not convinced all our foreign aid goes to worthwile causes that make us more popular or prevents mass immigration. For instance, we send billions of dollars worth of American made weapons to Isreal every year. Does this help our diplomacy with Iran or other arab nations?

No need to be convinced. Just remember that a majority of immigration to the US is due to unrest or squalld conditions in the immigrants home country. Be it low wages, rebels, or no water US foreign aid attempts to prevent the unrest and poverty in these countries so that they don't come here and create more of a burden and cost more money than if we didnt just spend the money in teh first place.

On a high note your efforts to spend money on American schools will do wonders for the new immigrants children that came from the country where you decided we didnt need to send money.

There is considerable debate centered on the cause of 20th century climate change. Few people contest the idea that some of the recent climate changes are likely due to natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar luminosity, and variations generated by natural interactions between parts of the climate system (for example, oceans and the atmosphere). There were significant climate changes before humans were around and there will be non-human causes of climate change in the future.

Nevertheless, with each year, more and more climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that human activity is also causing the climate to change. First on the list of likely human influences is warming due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Other human activities are thought to drive climate as well. As the ice-core data show, the increase in carbon dioxide is unprecedented and well outside the range of natural variations. The recent increase matches the increase calculated from the fossil fuel emissions. There is little doubt that these gases will contribute to global warming, and here too the paleo record provides invaluable evidence regarding how much temperature change accompanied changes in carbon dioxide over the past several hundred thousand years. However, there is uncertainty about some issues. For example, these questions remain to be answered with complete confidence:

How much warming has occurred due to anthropogenic increases in atmospheric trace-gas levels?
How much warming will occur in the future?
What other changes will occur with future warming?

Paleoclimatology offers help in answering each of these questions. Several of the paleoclimate studies reported in this web document have begun efforts to attribute past climate change to both natural and human causes, and to estimate how much of the current warming is due to humans (i.e., greenhouse warming). The best estimate is that about 50% of the observed global warming is due to greenhouse gas increases.

The paleo record also tells us how much temperature change occurred in the past when carbon dioxide levels were different. Studies show that the 100 ppm reduction in carbon dioxide during the last glacial was accompanied by a 3°C cooling in the western tropical oceans. This amount of temperature change is consistent with the change predicted by numerical climate model simulations. Changes at higher latitudes were much larger and included the growth of large ice sheets. Other studies of the glacial world show that many aspects of climate were different when carbon dioxide was reduced, including lower sea level, lower snowlines, and altered patterns of circulation. Based on these studies we can predict that other aspects of the climate in addition to temperature are likely to change with future warming.

We already had a president that, as the decider, decided that diplomacy was insulting as many countries as possible for 8 years. Now we get to mend fences. Cutting aid off is really not going to make us a good neighbor on this world. Had we a world where we could just be by ourselves we could ignore everything that isnt us. We dont have that luxury. I'll state it again in case you didnt read it the first few times.

If you don't improve things over there. They bring their problems over here.

The cheapest most efficient way to help ourselves is to help others in their own country. Imagine the number of imigrants that would be heading here had we not assisted in peoples native lands.

Why is it certain groups and have need to control the masses?

Because they believe they are smarter than you and threfore believe they should make your decisions for you.

I hold no belief such as this.

Then you are not as liberal as those who do believe that. Nothing wrong with that.

Nor am I conservative enough. One group would like to control me through my thoughts the other through my wallet. I don't really like either group. Given a choice I choose neither

Welcome to the Libertarian Party.

that would make me ultra conservative and I'm definitely not there

Learn something new every day. I had no idea being pro choice and for legal drug use were "ultra conservative." That being the case, what would the ultra-liberal position be?

I never knew eliminating Government regulations on everything or the elimination of tax collection and opening of free markets(see no regulations) were liberal ideals

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism, laissez-faire liberalism, and market liberalism or, outside Canada and the United States, sometimes simply liberalism is a form of liberalism stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government.

Since I am a stockholder, I would like to see how I could sue a company I own stock in if they make a poor business decision. That is hilarious!

Stockholders routinely sue the companies they hold stock in (e.g eBay sues Craigslist), that's nothing new, what is interesting is that Gary C is suggesting stockholders could sue because a company did not break the law in order to maximize profits. I'd like to see the outcome of that kind of case ...

lol Sell Sell Sell. and recommend sell on that stock. I'd think by owning a stock you'd be agreeing with the operations of a company. IF someone could get ahold of >50% of stock one could make a decision but thats highly unlikely

Why is it certain groups and have need to control the masses?

Because they believe they are smarter than you and threfore believe they should make your decisions for you.

I hold no belief such as this.

...
So who is worse Intel or the EU?

One could say the EU is an necessary 'evil'.
and also..
One could say the Intel has chosen to be 'evil'

Intel is required to be evil via fiduciary duty to shareholders. It must at all times attempt to maximize profit. This is the evil and it should be stamped out.

When you stamp out profits you stamp out all privately held companies! Profits are not bad! If you started up a company and had to invest cash in that business, wouldn't you want something back? A decent return? Otherwise you would be better off buying bonds or CD's.

You don't get the full measure of what that duty entails. If they can make more money by breaking the law and paying the fine than in following the law, that duty requires them to break the law!

It isn't profits that are evil, it is the requirement to maximize them.

Then why did you say we should stamp out profits?

I didn't. You apparently missed the word maximize before the word profit. Single concept not two different ones.

I agree there should be regulations/laws to prevent businesses from abusing monopoly powers. There are plenty of good laws on the books already that do just that.

But they don't. The rub is a sole prop is going to be as moral as the sole owner. A partnership or small closely held corporation can also be moral as they can decide on a moral code. A publicly traded corporation can not be moral because the chance exists that one shareholder of even one share of stock could sue if any opportunity for profit no matter how immoral is passed over. This is the crux of the problem and it is mandated by law.

...
So who is worse Intel or the EU?

One could say the EU is an necessary 'evil'.
and also..
One could say the Intel has chosen to be 'evil'

Intel is required to be evil via fiduciary duty to shareholders. It must at all times attempt to maximize profit. This is the evil and it should be stamped out.

When you stamp out profits you stamp out all privately held companies! Profits are not bad! If you started up a company and had to invest cash in that business, wouldn't you want something back? A decent return? Otherwise you would be better off buying bonds or CD's.

You don't get the full measure of what that duty entails. If they can make more money by breaking the law and paying the fine than in following the law, that duty requires them to break the law!

It isn't profits that are evil, it is the requirement to maximize them.

The big lie - alcohol and pot - "Nobody's hurt except the user"

Only the spouse, the children the business the user works for, the community he/she lives in.

Higher taxes to pay for more police, social services, medicaid.

More highway deaths, more crime, more wasted lives.

The only ones for it are alcoholics and drug users - "diminished capacity".

Users can't see they have a problem. They either sit in a corner admiring their belly button as their children wander the streets or are out on the streets themselves acting stupid or worse driving a vehicle while intoxicated.

Whatever someone puts into their own body should be their own business, as long as they are not harming anyone else.

Exactly!

Yes so when they kill enough brain cells they can't earn enough money to buy food and the substance they are addicted too, what does society do with them?

Why is it certain groups and have need to control the masses?

...
So who is worse Intel or the EU?

One could say the EU is an necessary 'evil'.
and also..
One could say the Intel has chosen to be 'evil'

Intel is required to be evil via fiduciary duty to shareholders. It must at all times attempt to maximize profit. This is the evil and it should be stamped out.

Whatever someone puts into their own body should be their own business, as long as they are not harming anyone else.

Does anyone else think the elites are fearing a second American Revolution?

"I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role -- a more important role -- to play there. I think the United States desperately needs a two-party system. It is the basis of politics in America. I think each of the 41 Republican senators, in a sense, and I don't want to overstate this, is a national asset, because if one was gone you would only have 40. The Democrats would have 60 and they would control all of the mechanisms of government." --Sen. Arlen Specter in March

I do not think the American people will be happy with an all democrat government. Not because of policy choices but because if anything goes wrong, and something always goes wrong, there will be no one to blame but democrats. If I remember correctly, this is how the democrats lost their congressional majority in the 90's.

Taxpayers to Get Rude Surprise

Not a surprise we got the same thing back in the Reagan years.

"I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role -- a more important role -- to play there. I think the United States desperately needs a two-party system. It is the basis of politics in America. I think each of the 41 Republican senators, in a sense, and I don't want to overstate this, is a national asset, because if one was gone you would only have 40. The Democrats would have 60 and they would control all of the mechanisms of government." --Sen. Arlen Specter in March

Is this what you think? I read his words I'd like to read yours. Please tell me you do have an opinion. I'm sure the opinion writer you quoted is quite sincere about his opinions. I've yet to read anything about your opinions. I'd Hate to think that you are sharing the same brain and don't have anything other to contribute other than the other mans opinion.

When I was a young man I was unsure which way the wind was blowing. I read articles and op/ed pages to get a bearing on my direction. As I aged I didn't rely on them anymore. I have an opinion on many things and don't rely on others to speak for me. I may not always have a popular opinion but it is mine to defend. I don't ask others to agree with me but I do ask that they express their own opinion so that I can understand them as well as I hope they understand me. That being said I never agree in whole with any political pundit or other orator. Which leads me to the understanding that if someone is in total agreement with another person on a hundred topics then one or both of those people has compromised their values. If hundreds and thousands agree them well we have politics

Where are we headed ?

"At the rate that Obama and the liberals are going, when it comes to piling up the national debt, nationalizing banks and major companies, scuttling our missile defense system, reaching out to Islamic and Communist tyrants, funding ACORN, AmeriCorps and Hamas, discussing nuclear disarmament with Russia at the same time that Iran, Pakistan and North Korea are gearing up, talking tough to Israel while currying favor with the Arabs and the Islamists, I have no idea what will be left to salvage a year-and-a-half down the road."--columnist Burt Prelutsky

As much as Burt makes pretty words it would be so much nicer to know what your opinion is. Burt isn't here to dispute or convey any further opinion had I a counterpoint.

My counterpoint is National debt? This all W's doing. He is our modern Hoover. Do nothing Herb let the country slide and so did W. Let the markets do as they want happened before and ended in 1929. Perhaps W wasn't a great historian even though his BA is in History.

The posts from extremely conservative opinionists, He's no journalist, just inflame the few people that actually believe that same old song. Fortunately, there are fewer people than ever that actually listen to this rubbish.

BTW I've read that inciteful opinion twice. I see nothing in it that helps this country get out of its current situation. right now if you don't have a constructive alternate solution that helps as many people and businesses as possible then its probably best to sit down, shut up, and let the man do his job. If current policies fail then we can do something different. DOing nothing is never a solution to an economic dilemma

also any soultion that includes tax breaks for the top 1% of the population is not a solution. I threw that out there before it was even suggested

British law on Citizen's Arrest
Private gun ownership should be one of the hardest things possible to achieve. It should never be a "right" and certainly is not permitted under the US Constitution unless you bend one phrase so far as to persuade the law enforcement process that this is the case.

US citizens who live by the gun have an appalling tendency both to deal death and to die by the gun. How many more have to die in this way before the truth hits you with magnum force?

More on gun ownership and why it is important to sefety:

"Some of our biggest political fallacies come from accepting words as evidence of realities. ...[For example,] 'gun control' laws do not control guns. The District of Columbia's very strong laws against gun ownership have done nothing to stop the high murder rate in Washington. New York had very strong gun control laws decades before London did. But the murder rate in New York has been some multiple of that in London for more than two centuries, regardless of which city had the stronger gun control laws at a given time. Back in 1954, when there were no restrictions on owning shotguns in England and there were far more owners of pistols then than there were decades later, there were only 12 cases of armed robbery in London. By the 1990s, after stringent gun controls laws were imposed, there were well over a thousand armed robberies a year in London. In the late 1990s, after an almost total ban on handguns in England, gun crimes went up another ten percent. The reason -- too obvious to be accepted by the intelligentsia -- is that law-abiding people became more defenseless against criminals who ignored the law and kept their guns." --Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell

Indeed, and in the UK where the law-abiding cannot protect themselves there were 59 firearm related killings in the most recent year for which there is data (thx BBC), compared to over 16,000 firearm murders in the US in 2004 (thx DOJ). I wonder if the intelligentsia have an answer for that.

"Some of our biggest political fallacies come from accepting words as evidence of realities. ...[For example,] 'gun control' laws do not control guns. The District of Columbia's very strong laws against gun ownership have done nothing to stop the high murder rate in Washington. New York had very strong gun control laws decades before London did. But the murder rate in New York has been some multiple of that in London for more than two centuries, regardless of which city had the stronger gun control laws at a given time. Back in 1954, when there were no restrictions on owning shotguns in England and there were far more owners of pistols then than there were decades later, there were only 12 cases of armed robbery in London. By the 1990s, after stringent gun controls laws were imposed, there were well over a thousand armed robberies a year in London. In the late 1990s, after an almost total ban on handguns in England, gun crimes went up another ten percent. The reason -- too obvious to be accepted by the intelligentsia -- is that law-abiding people became more defenseless against criminals who ignored the law and kept their guns." --Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell

"Today is tax day, and across America, taxpayers are holding tea parties to protest out-of-control government spending. Their concern is no tempest in a teapot. The tax burden on American families is growing increasingly heavy. According to the Tax Foundation, tax-freedom day came on April 13 this year. That day marks the point of the year when taxpayers have earned enough money to pay off their federal, state and local taxes. It takes Americans about 3 1/2 months of labor to cover their tax obligation. That time will increase as government continues to grow. President Obama's current budget proposal admits to plans to raise taxes by almost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) estimates that hundreds of thousands will turn out to protest this tax servitude. ... Today's tea parties are carrying on a noble American tradition of protesting unfair taxation. Mike Allen, co-author of 'A Patriot's History of the United States,' explained to us: 'America was born out of hatred of a strong centralized government. The Boston Tea Party (and a half dozen other concurrent tea parties from New York City to Charleston) protested government subsidies to create monopoly status for a corporation, the East India Company. From that point onward, tax protests have peppered American history.' The first tea party to protest taxes occurred on Dec. 16, 1773, when patriots called the Sons of Liberty dressed as Mohawk Indians, boarded ships in Boston Harbor and threw 342 chests of tea overboard. Other colonials followed the lead of Sam Adams and his fellow Bostonians by tossing tea into the sea. Today's tea-party movement is building steam because taxpayers are steamed. As ATR's anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist explained ... 'These are real people with real lives taking the time and effort to do this in reaction not to a tax increase yesterday, but in reaction to too much spending that will lead to tax increases and inflation years from now.' These modern Mohawks are angry because they fear the future is being poured down the drain. This kind of activism is our cup of tea." --The Washington Times

"People are tired of wasteful government programs and welfare chiselers, and they're angry about the constant spiral of taxes and government regulations, arrogant bureaucrats, and public officials who think all of mankind's problems can be solved by throwing the taxpayers' dollars at them." ++ "Government can't tax things like businesses or corporations, it can only tax people. When it says it's going to 'make business pay,' it is really saying it is going to make business help it collect taxes." ++ "We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." ++ "Our tax policy is engineered by people who view tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure." ++ "Raising taxes will slow economic growth, reduce production, and destroy future jobs, making it more difficult for those without jobs to find them and more likely that those who now have jobs could lose them." ++ "My friends, history is clear: Lower tax rates mean greater freedom, and whenever we lower the tax rates, our entire nation is better off." --Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

said the shooter, that is not an evidence yet, if ever, nor it gives him right to shoot. or will someone show me where in law it says it is ok to shoot charging kid, woman, dog , men? or parrot or hawk.

In the United States, a civilian may legally use deadly force when it is considered justifiable homicide, that is to say when the civilian feels their own life, or the lives of their family or those around them are in legitimate and imminent danger. However, self-defense resulting in usage of deadly force by a civilian or civilians against an individual or individuals is often subject to examination by a court if it is unclear whether it was necessary at the point of the offense, and whether any further action on the part of the law needs to be taken.

A guy I work with-his wife is a schoolteacher who taught the kid who was killed. She had him in Special Ed. (not saying Special Education kids are bad at all) and he was constantly a source of frustration for her. Cocky, not-caring attitude....she said it's not a surprise he got into trouble but she had hoped it wouldn't happen so soon

Good thing he was shot and killed. Sounds like he deserves what he got.
Society can't condone a teenager who's frustrating and cocky with a not-caring attitude.

OOPS... sounds like we've just allowed every teenager in the world to be shot on sight.

How does this differ from the thread lamenting the stoning to death of a woman who was raped?
How does a society condone the killing of a child for an act of stupidity?

Neither situation calls for the eventual outcomes.

Capital punishment is wrong.

No one, not even the state, has the right to take away a person's life.

Anyone who thinks this is some form of justice is bent out of shape far beyond my ability to fix in a forum such as this.

I do find it strange that Americans can get angry at the death of a woman, at the hand of the state, for being raped in a Middle Eastern country but feel it's allright to shoot and kill a kid for breaking into a car.

I can only assume that a couple of CD's and a pack of smokes are more valuable than a life in the United States of America.

Canadian and proud of it.

You guys can keep on shooting each other as much as you want but please stop trying to lay that morality crap on the rest of the world.

47000 people died last year because of my right to drink a beer. I voted against liquor by the drink but they are still dead. Of course it was legal. I would be perfectly happy not to drink beer and only 10000 died from drinking moonshine.

So you are saying that legalized alcohol is kept out of the hands of minors? Are you saying that legal prescription drugs are only used by those that have prescriptions? I wish that was a statement of fact. But sadly it isn't.

With decriminalization the government can regulate, tax and oversee the sale of drugs thereby limiting the sale of recreational drugs to minors and thoese forbidden to puchase by law (to be determened).

I don't know what it is that makes you so angry, besides the deadbeats in your family, but all of the other "what if" stuff you've posted seem a little over the top.

I'll simply quote myself and stand by my statements.

This is interesting the FBI Seizing Servers in Dallas Data Center.

atricle

waggoner was willing to sink the ship with all hands on board. I assume that the Prez let him know that his current course will get him nothing and if he weren't willing to do something extraordinary then he needed to step aside and let someone more courageous than him to get er done

Which is up to the board of directors.

Yes, and with the amount of money we have sunk into GM at the moment, I am certian the US Government has a seat on the board (or maybe even controls the board).

You have to be voted onto the board of directors by the stockholders.

Waggoner needed to go, I just wish the board of directors fired him before Obama could use him to score political points. (which is why he fired him in the first place)

I suppose you have proof that the Auto Task Force Fired Waggoner just so
Obama would score some political points, even though you agree he should
have been fired, or are you just putting this nonsense out there hoping
people will believe your "Right Wing Propaganda".

waggoner was willing to sink the ship with all hands on board. I assume that the Prez let him know that his current course will get him nothing and if he weren't willing to do something extraordinary then he needed to step aside and let someone more courageous than him to get er done

Which is up to the board of directors.

Yes, and with the amount of money we have sunk into GM at the moment, I am certian the US Government has a seat on the board (or maybe even controls the board).

waggoner was willing to sink the ship with all hands on board. I assume that the Prez let him know that his current course will get him nothing and if he weren't willing to do something extraordinary then he needed to step aside and let someone more courageous than him to get er done

Top recipients of AIG campaign contributionsfrom 1989-2008 : Note that the person at the top of the list is the senator who admitted to adding the language that allowed AIG to use the funds for executive bonuses.

Dodd, Chris (D-Conn) $281,038
Bush, George W (R-Texas) $200,560
Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $111,875
Obama, Barack (D-Ill) $110,332
McCain, John (R-Ariz) $99,249
Baucus, Max (D-Mont) $90,000
Kerry, John (D-Mass) $85,000
Johnson, Nancy L (R-Conn $75,400
Sununu, John E (R-NH) $69,049
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $61,51

$200,560 to a man who didn't run for office? What are these, lifetime totals? What did they give last election?

Click the link

Among Federal Candidates, 1989-2008

that would have been nice to know up front.

The link was available up front, I was not hiding anything.

See what happens when I add "from 1989-2008"

Top recipients of AIG campaign contributions: Note that the person at the top of the list is the senator who admitted to adding the language that allowed AIG to use the funds for executive bonuses.

Dodd, Chris (D-Conn) $281,038
Bush, George W (R-Texas) $200,560
Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $111,875
Obama, Barack (D-Ill) $110,332
McCain, John (R-Ariz) $99,249
Baucus, Max (D-Mont) $90,000
Kerry, John (D-Mass) $85,000
Johnson, Nancy L (R-Conn $75,400
Sununu, John E (R-NH) $69,049
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $61,51

$200,560 to a man who didn't run for office? What are these, lifetime totals? What did they give last election?

Click the link

Among Federal Candidates, 1989-2008

that would have been nice to know up front.

Top recipients of AIG campaign contributions: Note that the person at the top of the list is the senator who admitted to adding the language that allowed AIG to use the funds for executive bonuses.

Dodd, Chris (D-Conn) $281,038
Bush, George W (R-Texas) $200,560
Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $111,875
Obama, Barack (D-Ill) $110,332
McCain, John (R-Ariz) $99,249
Baucus, Max (D-Mont) $90,000
Kerry, John (D-Mass) $85,000
Johnson, Nancy L (R-Conn $75,400
Sununu, John E (R-NH) $69,049
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $61,51

$200,560 to a man who didn't run for office? What are these, lifetime totals? What did they give last election?

20,000 Americans lose their jobs every day.
10,000 homes foreclosed on every day.

PS: I'm a Canadian with great concerns about the direction the US has taken these past thirty years.

And the Obama administration? It was under Obama that these funds were given to AIG without oversight as to what AIG could do with the money.

But it was the bush administration that set the agenda for the past eight years and allowed these thieves to get this far.
It was also the Bush bunch who came forward with a three page bail-out solution at the very begining that was the template for this thing.

(CNN) -- Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.

Dodd acknowledged his role in the change after a Treasury Department official told CNN the administration pushed for the language.

I've been listening to the Air America and NovaM talk shows and the situation with the AIG bonuses is becoming quite a scandal.

Can you imagine having the gnads to come to the people for financial help to keep your company above water, then after receiving the handout from the people turning around and giving 165 million dollars in bonuses to the same goofs that ran the company into the ground causing the need to ask for help?

Where do the corporate pigs get the idea that the people's money is their personal property?
Where does the notion that they can do what they want come from?

Could there be a direct link between this selfish attitude and the lack of oversight during republican administrations?

Isnt that the bush doctrine. If theirs a crisis blindly attack a country then spend like there's no tomorrow?

I though Obama was supposed to bring change to washington...

Bush brought the change Obama gets to fix it.

Its a shame that the highest office in the land is turned into a janitors office.

It's a shame that the "discourse" on this and other of the Politics boards have frequently become nothing more than a cut and paste from online articles and blogs that have clearly been written by others.

The honest truth is that Bush wouldn't and couldn't be honest to Congress, and congress didn't care, or the American people. Had he been honest he'd have included all the funding for His 2 wars and his new prison system in the budget. What he did in reality is forced congress to pass emergency spending bills several times a year. THis made his budgets look "normal" and not exagerated like our Presidents does now. Simply put you have to ask yourself would you rather be lied to or take the honest budget and accept what we've been paying for all along with the dishonest budgets in one fell swoop.

Isnt that the bush doctrine. If theirs a crisis blindly attack a country then spend like there's no tomorrow?

being in the science field it's really hard to respond to something like what you wrote. The best answer to give is "and your proof is?" or "Theres no real reply to this because its just rampant speculation based on primal fears without any basis in science".

All I can claim is what I read in their policies.

I don't know why you seem to think socialism is such a swear word.
You have many socialist programs working for you at this moment, things such as police departments, fire dept's, schools, insurance plans, water and sewer to name a few.

If you think that I'm going to be offended, you're crazier than Whiplash Willy.

PS: I truly wish Obama were a socialist...but he ain't.

Obama signed the "imperfect" bill, despite its 9,000 pork projects, which he himself criticized.

I heard on american radio that the pork you are so concerned about was almost entirely republican pork. That should make you happier.

I love the way those guys work.
Load a bill with pork, then criticize the bill for containing that same pork.

So Rush, what is a libertarian for?

Principled gov't. Not mob rule.

And whose principles would they be?

Here's a bar graph lifted from the link provided by rebest.
It is figure 3... the link is a good read. Thanks

Seems clear enough to me.

What I stated is fact.

It's amazing how little local municipalities are will to pay to keep their citizens safe

"In Washington, one person's waste is another person's pork. Every dime spent by the federal government has well-connected advocates who swear the money is vital to the national interest. ... It's not that people in government aren't as good or competent as those in the private sector (though that may be true). The difference lies in the incentives and feedback they face. Bureaucracies have little check on what they do, no bottom line, no market prices for their 'output.' What they do have is an incentive to spend all the money budgeted or risk getting less next year. As Milton Friedman used to say, no one spends other people's money as carefully as he spends his own. It is absurd to think the humongous constellation of federal bureaucracies is going to identify and root out 'waste' in any significant way. It's just not in the nature of the beast." --ABC's "20/20" co-anchor John Stossel

I would like to thank you for quoting a raging Libertarian

Who makes a good point you refuse to address.

Does your opposition mean you are in favor of government waste and the poliferation of special interest groups in Washington? Do you really trust government to cut waste in a significant way? I do not think that is possible.

Duh NO! I am opposed to people that think that Gov't is the problem until Katrina comes knocking on their door. I am Opposed to people that think that All tax laws are illegal I am opposed to people that find fault in Gov't and their solution is no Gov't. Before Anyone tries to say Libertarians aren't for No Gov't I disagree. If you don't believe in taxes and you don't like social programs, lets have no gov't for a year. Lets see how crime goes up when there are no police on the streets. I bet driving to work would be fun if your car were still parked outside and if you were still alive after the thieves broke into your... I digress.

No civilization has ever existed for any length of time where taxes weren't collected and there wasn't a heirarchy of established rule in that civilization. So I am sayign that a Libertarian is a fool that shouts at the wind that Gov't/taxes/social programs are bad, yet is unwilling to demonstrate a means of protecting a civilization from itself and foreign countries. I can only assume that This is a Party of Rich men, much like H. Ross Perots party. Perhaps we should all be serfs to the ultra rich. where we provide their protection and they get all the money. Oh wait we already have that, Nevermind!

"In Washington, one person's waste is another person's pork. Every dime spent by the federal government has well-connected advocates who swear the money is vital to the national interest. ... It's not that people in government aren't as good or competent as those in the private sector (though that may be true). The difference lies in the incentives and feedback they face. Bureaucracies have little check on what they do, no bottom line, no market prices for their 'output.' What they do have is an incentive to spend all the money budgeted or risk getting less next year. As Milton Friedman used to say, no one spends other people's money as carefully as he spends his own. It is absurd to think the humongous constellation of federal bureaucracies is going to identify and root out 'waste' in any significant way. It's just not in the nature of the beast." --ABC's "20/20" co-anchor John Stossel

I would like to thank you for quoting a raging Libertarian

That's because a libertarian train is free to go where it wishes.
Even if it leads to a wreck.

"The 'Stimulus Czar' Joe Biden was asked to explain how the trillion-dollar stimulus bill will help a small business owner. Here's the best Czar Biden could come up with: 'For example, it may very well be that she's in a circumstance where she is not able, her customers aren't able to get to her, there's no transit capability, the bridge going across the creek to get to her business needs repair, may very well be that she's in a position where she is unable to access the -- her energy costs are so high by providing smart meters, by being able to bring down the cost of her workforce.' Clearly, Joe Biden has never run a business in his life. If this entrepreneur is worried about energy costs now, smart meters won't do any good unless they can block Obama's $300 billion carbon tax on utilities. And, what entrepreneur would put his or her business in a location that 'customers aren't able to get to'?" --Gary Bauer

"Democratic leaders in Washington, they place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you, the American people. In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government. We oppose the national Democratic view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, to empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and create jobs." --Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal

"[T]he American people are already doing something to create wealth and hasten the recovery, even if we are the ones forgotten in the battle over what Washington should do. Americans are going to work every day and providing for their families ... increasing their savings rates, making much needed capital available to the private sector ... imagining new and more efficient ways to use valuable resources." --economist Steven Horwitz

I've not seen anything that shows the gov't is expanding faster than the country is growing

A new ERA? You mean the Post -Bush borrow, spend and conquer foreign nations Era. Lets get this straight. You actually believe that the gov't didnt expand in the last 8 years and that whats coming bothers you.

Allegations that unsafe drugs are approved
Some critics believe that the FDA has been too willing to overlook safety concerns in approving new drugs, and is slow to withdraw approved drugs once evidence shows them to be unsafe. Rezulin (troglitazone) and Vioxx (rofecoxib) are high-profile examples of drugs approved by the FDA which were later withdrawn from the market for posing unacceptable risks to patients.

Troglitazone is a diabetes drug that was also available abroad at the time the FDA approved it. Post-marketing safety data indicated that the drug had dangerous side-effects (in this case liver failure). The drug was pulled off that market in the UK in 1997, but was not withdrawn by the FDA until 2000, before which time it is claimed that thousands of Americans were injured or killed by the drug.[26]

In the case of Vioxx, a pre-approval study indicated that a group taking the drug had four times the risk of heart attacks when compared to another group of patients taking another anti-inflammatory, naproxen.[27] The FDA approval board accepted the manufacturer's argument that this was due to a previously unknown cardioprotective effect of naproxen, rather than a risk of Vioxx, and the drug was approved. In 2005, the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled study showed that Vioxx users suffered a higher rate of heart attacks and other cardiovascular disorders than patients taking no medication at all.[28] Faced with numerous lawsuits, the manufacturer voluntarily withdrew it from the market in 2004. The example of Vioxx has been prominent in an ongoing debate over whether new drugs should be evaluated on the basis of their absolute safety, or their safety relative to existing treatments for a given condition.

David Graham, a scientist in the Office of Drug Safety within the CDER, testified to Congress that he was pressured by his supervisors not to warn the public about dangers of drugs like Vioxx. He argued that an inherent conflict of interest exists when the office responsible for post-approval monitoring of drug safety is controlled by the same organization which initially approved those same drugs as safe and effective.[26] In a 2006 survey sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists, almost one-fifth of FDA scientists said they "have been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or their conclusions in a FDA scientific document."[29]

Allegations that unsafe food additives and processing technologies are approved
Food safety advocates have criticized the FDA for allowing meat manufacturers to use carbon monoxide gas mixtures during the packaging process to prevent discoloration of meat, a process that may hide signs of spoilage from the consumer.[30]

The FDA has been criticised for allowing the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in dairy cows. rBGH-treated cows secrete higher levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in their milk than do untreated cows. IGF-1 signalling is thought to play a role in sustaining the growth of some tumors, although there is little or no evidence that exogenously absorbed IGF could promote tumor growth. The FDA approved rBGH for use in dairy cows in 1993, after concluding that humans drinking such milk were unlikely to absorb biologically significant quantities of bovine IGF-1.[31] A 1999 report of the European Commission Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health noted that scientific questions persist regarding the theoretical health risks of milk from rBGH-treated cows, particularly for feeding to infants.[32] Since 1993, all EU countries have maintained a ban on rBGH use in dairy cattle.

The FDA has also been criticised for permitting the routine use of antibiotics in healthy domestic animals to promote their growth, a practice which contributes to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.[33] The FDA has taken recent steps to limit the use of antibiotics in farm animals. In September 2005, the FDA withdrew approval for the use of the fluoroquinolone antibiotic enrofloxacin (trade name Baytril) in poultry, out of concern that this practice could promote bacterial resistance to important human antibiotics such as ciprofloxacin.[34]

The FDA has received criticism for its approval of certain coal tar derived food dyes such as FDC yellow 5 and 6, which are banned in most European countries. However, many studies of these compounds have failed to demonstrate heath risks. For example, a Japanese group found in 1987 that tartrazine was not carcinogenic even after being fed to mice for two years.[35] In addition, a German group found in 1989 that Sunset Yellow did not induce mutations that could lead to cancer in laboratory animals.[36]

The FDA has also been criticized for giving permission for cloned animals to be sold as food without any special labelling, although "cloned products may not reach the U.S. market for years." "Authorities lack the authority to require labeling of products from cloned animals."[37]

Actually, it's you missing the point Rush.
The corporations may pass the costs on but they also haven't been passing the savings on.
These past 30 years have seen explosive corporate growth, both in size and profits, and while their taxes are dropping steadily, prices are still climbing.
(with the exception of consumer electronics made by slave labour)

As to your misguided concerns over a 90% tax rate.
The rate doesn't apply to your first 4 million dollars, only to any earnings over and above that number each year.

No one, and let me repeat, no one can justify annual earnings higher than 4 or 5 million.

I'm quite certain you will now attempt to do just that.
Please try to do so without getting all derogatory. Think you can handle that just once? Good boy.

never in our history has a more important vote been cast on legislation with so little scrutiny.

Someone overlooked the bank bailouts

In all, three Republican senators and three GOP assembly members broke party lines to join Democratic lawmakers, who unanimously backed the spending plan.

"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson

the majority voted for him, so you live in democracy and you should respect the outcome, and if you wanna chances, make sure that your canditate next time is better.

study something please, that is the same when people gather berrys and change food and stuff, that is not capitalism ( nor they are capitalist)perse, still they own those stuff.

Besides, democrats control the Senate.

Actually Ice King, You have It wrong, Democrats control the House, In the Senate Democrats have only 58 out of 100 seats.

Some good comments and extras all round.

A little something for a general perspective:

Gallery: Putting human consumption into perspective

One comment there about the aircraft contrails... The high altitude warming effect is listed. However, there is also a daytime cooling effect due to reflecting the sunlight back into space. So... Fly only on daytime flights if at all?

That is also just one small example of the balance of effects that must be considered that then allows so much FUD to be pushed by everyone interested. More of a question is which group has a vested interest backed up by loss-and-profits and expensive Marketing?

And then there are those that are in denial and just don't want to know... Too scared of change?


Keep searchin',
Martin

That reminds Me, Some loony guy(no idea who) on Congress.org was saying that contrails were poisoned or something, Of course they aren't, He was just loony.

Looks like the usual politics and science still gets hit:

Now you see it… now you don’t

... a US senate committee has suggested significant cuts to Barack Obama’s $825bn economic stimulus package.

And it doesn’t look good for science — with all the extra money for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy Office of Science included in the cuts.

Continued Bush legacy or more of the Luddite Bush cronies? Or just a hark back to the religious days of old whereby the populace were to be kept "dumbed down" to keep them 'more religious'...

For those stuck in California like Me and such...

What about all of the workers who build jets and pilots who fly jets are put out of work, because the government says corporations can't use corporate jets anymore.
Government meddling in one area always negatively affects another area.

See, the whole theory behind this salary cap is if you're not performing well, and you're taking taxpayer money, then that should be reflected in lower wages. Of course, under that criteria, everybody in Congress should get like, what, two bucks an hour?

The highest political office in the U.S. is the Office of the President, who's wages were recently increased by George W. Bush from $200,000/yr to $450,000/yr, which is still under $500,000/yr as specified by the cutoff.

I honestly don't know other's wages, but are you saying that every person in Washington makes more than the President of the U.S.?

the main problem I see with diatribes is that they provide a person with an excuse to rant and rave about how inappropriate or dumb political solution may be. As much fun as that is it doesnt give an alternative. And by alternative I dont mean doing more of whats already been done(W's Tax cuts to the Rich). So be Rooseveltian and find a solution to a massive depression before you get into the Depression. Some states are already at 10% unemployment and many are to follow.

It still irritates me to the Nth degree that the Republicans were all onboard to had Big banks free money with little more than a handshake and a slap on the back. But when we talk about real problems like real people losing everything they've ever had.

"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

Bush-era energy drilling leases in Utah canceled

Is more drilling as necessary with $40 barrel oil?

Yes, Why? As It never stays at or even near $40 a barrel for long, Or did You just come out of a cave where Dinos still exist?

they have new rules, surprise,change is real thing.
status quo is dead, long live dead.

Bush-era energy drilling leases in Utah canceled

Obama imposes limits on executive pay
$500,000 cap would apply to those getting ‘exceptional’ bailout assistance

limits on executive pay

Some of the executives that got bailouts under Bush recently received bonuses from their companies in the range of tens of millions of dollars. Is this a wise expenditure of public money?

Daschle is out of game, your news are outdated

It's time Obie nominated people who could file their taxes!

What!!?? Obie filled the people's heads with empty rhetoric?? Say it isn't so!!

Daschle is out of game, your news are outdated

And how absolutely marvelous that the very state which has that 'long history of corruption' happens to the be the home state of ... Oh, my. Can it be? Yes! President Barack Obama.

One thing to remember is that President Obama is not an IL native and he was only an IL senator for a couple years if I'm not mistaken (I know it wasn't very long). So yes, its easy for him to come out of IL "unsoiled". What horrible editorializing to infer that because President Obama came from a place known for its corruption that somehow he must be as well.

The only people responsible for the list are the republicans in Congress

And guess who are the only people responsible for all of the pork barrel, wastefull and useless spending in the stimulus bill? Republicans? Guess again... We need a stimulus bill, but not the one floating around congress. Even Obama stated that some of the spending should be cut from the bill. We'll see if that actually happens.

Do you defend the spending found in this bill? Besides the tax cuts?

OK you want pork lets look at the last 3 republican Presidents and their spending.

The only people responsible for the list are the republicans in Congress

Ohferchrissakes.

There has never been "smaller government." There has never been "less regulation." You are both wrong.

More regulation and more gov't agencies and more negative drags on the economic activity of the country do not make anything better.

"[P]eople do not ask for socialism because they know that socialism will improve their conditions, and they do not reject capitalism because they know that it is a system prejudicial to their interests. They are socialists because they believe that socialism will improve their conditions, and they hate capitalism because they believe that it harms them. They are socialists because they are blinded by envy and ignorance." --economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973)

Smaller government has not worked. Less regulatio has not worked. You are right Joker.

boring, taxes are bad only if they are not used to help citizens life

As stated before: Is this is a 40+ year long conspiracy? or is it what it looks like a birth certificate from Hawaii. No leap of faith just letting go of a ridiculous internet conspiracy.

certification of live birth and Birth Certificate are one and the same thing. Split hairs shouldn't be done by dullards.

So since Hawaii has been a US state since 1960 and Obama was born in 1961, That means He's about a Year Younger than Me and a US Citizen by Birth... :)

again... What you are passing off as a "birth certificate" is actually nothing more than a "certificate of live birth," which, pursuant to Hawaii Land Statue 338.17.8, is available on request from any resident of Hawaii. (regardless of where they were born)

It says He was born in Hawaii in 1961 and as It's a legal document, Who friggin cares what It's called?

And Since Hawaii became a US State in 1960, He's a US Citizen by birth as I am. ;p

So since Hawaii has been a US state since 1960 and Obama was born in 1961, That means He's about a Year Younger than Me and a US Citizen by Birth... :)