"If the report was accurately quoted, would it really change your mind though?"
Actually after all this time of violence in the region you are probably right. It might not immediately change my mind, I certainly might be more skeptical. Having said that I really don't see any way I could justify shooting inaccurate weapons into civilian areas. I pretty much view the Israel/Palestine violence the same as I did the Irish violence. I don't get it?
Back in the 70's I had a contractor working with me who was from Ireland. I asked him one time what all the fighting that as going on was about and he couldn't explain it either.

It is a shame we can't see the original report (if it exists).

>Yes it would be interesting to see the full MFA report...<

If the report was accurately quoted, would it really change your mind though?

I find that in matters like these, people are entrenched emotionally. Such reports are irrelevant to the majority of onlookers.

Yes it would be interesting to see the full MFA report...
I find some of the quotes a little too convenient.

I don't either, but Matt allows it. Has been done to me several times by some of the IHUB "pets".
Time to move on.

FWIW, I don't think a moderator of any board should be able to put a poster on ignore.

Democrats' Factions Could Stall Grand Plans
By NAFTALI BENDAVID and GREG HITT

WASHINGTON -- The new Congress sweeps into town Tuesday with many members comparing themselves to the 1933 Congress that enacted much of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and changed the government's relationship to its citizenry.
These times are very different from 1933, when the 73rd Congress enacted 16 major laws during Mr. Roosevelt's First 100 Days. Today's economy, for all its struggles, doesn't remotely resemble the turmoil of the Great Depression, with its 25% unemployment. Also, the public's appetite for broad change isn't yet clear.

None of this is deterring the Democrats. Like the Congress of 76 years ago, they are converging on Washington with a popular new president, significant congressional majorities and, perhaps most important, a shaken public eager for government to try something new.

"We are at a unique moment in history -- we have an opportunity that maybe comes only once in a generation," Rep. Henry Waxman said recently. "We may well turn out to be as historical as the Congress was in 1933."

Democrats see the best chance in decades to expand health coverage, move toward energy independence, tackle climate change and re-regulate the financial-services industry.

"We certainly have the obligation to attack big problems," says Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, sitting under a large photo of Mr. Roosevelt in his personal office. "We have been playing small-ball for a long time here."The first order of business on the Democrats' agenda will be acting on a two-year economic-stimulus package. Still under construction, the plan could be as large as $775 billion, and it could include about $300 billion in tax cuts, $350 billion in infrastructure spending and billions more in aid to states and other measures. Democratic leaders hope to have the bill on President-elect Barack Obama's desk by mid-February.

Underlying the recovery plan and the Democrats' other agenda items is a determination to shift the nation's economic balance of power back to workers and the middle class -- by making it easier for employees to unionize, pushing banks to restructure mortgages and rewrite credit rules, and providing health coverage to more people.

What's to stop the Democrats? There are serious obstacles, starting with the party itself, which is hardly unified. Some Democratic congressional factions, like the more-conservative Blue Dogs, are deeply suspicious of expanded federal spending. Democrats from old industrial states worry that colleagues from California want to be too hard on the auto industry. Coal-state Democrats fear the party's environmental wing will go too far with efforts to clamp down on fossil fuels.Republicans, meanwhile, have made it clear they won't simply accept whatever Democrats propose, unlike in Mr. Roosevelt's day. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, joined by House Minority Leader John Boehner, recently issued a statement demanding "the consideration of alternative ideas, public congressional hearings and transparency -- not a rushed, partisan take-it-or-leave-it approach."

Some of what Congress wants to do may be obstructed by what it has to do. It must finish up the 2009 budget and debate the 2010 budget. When the Treasury Department seeks to release the second half of the $700 billion pool created to calm financial markets, Congress must debate whether to block the move or substantially revamp the program.

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank said Congress would likely block the expenditure if brought up now. But Rep. Frank is studying "ways to make it more palatable," such as legislation to ensure the money is used to help with consumer needs such as student loans, auto purchases and mortgage relief.

The most important factor in the Democrats' success will likely be whether the party's actions reflect the "change" voters had in mind when they voted Republicans out of power.

Today, the public appears hungry for government action, but also wary. Nearly two-thirds of Americans support new spending to stimulate the economy, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found. At the same time, in a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, 56% worried the government would spend too much.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer sees a widespread desire to confront big problems after the Bush years.

"People see that we have sort of been dithering while Rome has been burning, and we need to respond," Rep. Hoyer, of Maryland, said in an interview.

But even if Democrats get virtually everything they want in the new Congress, it wouldn't amount to a "new New Deal." Instead, historians say the Democrats are really looking to revive and extend the fundamental approach behind Mr. Roosevelt's program, much as President Lyndon Johnson did in 1965 with programs like Medicare and Head Start.

"What the Democrats are looking to is really the spirit of the New Deal," said David Woolner, a history professor at Marist College and executive director of the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute. "It's the idea that government can play a role in engineering a socio-economic system that provides great security for everyday Americans."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120199307655729.html

This Dems. themselves may be the downfall of Obama as many have spent the last 8 years doing nothing but fighting againstr evrything that came along and adding pork to the little that got through... It also appears that the Obama admin seems to have too many people who think they are in charge (Pelosi, Frank, Reid). Will be interesting to see how Obama confronts them

Panetta a surprise pick to run the CIA
Leon Panetta, a former congressman and Clinton chief of staff, would give Obama a political ally at the helm of the troubled spy agency.
By Greg Miller and Christi Parsons

January 6, 2009

Reporting from Washington — In choosing Leon E. Panetta to be the next CIA director, President-elect Barack Obama appears to have concluded that a spy chief who understands politics may be better equipped to carry out the incoming administration's national security agenda than one who understands espionage.

The surprise selection of Panetta, a former California congressman and chief of staff to President Clinton, would give Obama a CIA director with loyalty to the White House and an experienced managerial hand to steer the administration away from potential intelligence scandals.

But it runs the risk of putting an outsider at the helm of the CIA just as it seems to be regaining its footing after years of criticism over intelligence failures leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq war, and for aggressive interrogation tactics used in their aftermath.

If confirmed by the Senate, Panetta would be among the few directors in agency history with no experience at one of the nation's spy services.

Largely for that reason, Panetta's selection was met with criticism on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who this week begins her tenure as the first female head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she was not consulted on the choice and indicated she might oppose it.

"I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director," Feinstein said. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

A senior aide to Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the outgoing chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the senator "would have concerns" about a Panetta nomination.

Rockefeller "thinks very highly of Panetta," the aide said. "But he's puzzled by the selection. He has concerns because he has always believed that the director of CIA needs to be someone with significant operational intelligence experience and someone outside the political realm."

But the nomination was praised by others who see Panetta as an outsider who can bring accountability and reform to an agency accused of human rights abuses.

"We need the CIA to collect reliable, actionable intelligence in ways that respect American values and honor the Constitution," said Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), chairman of a House Intelligence Committee oversight panel.

Panetta would join a CIA trying to stay abreast of the demands of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the pursuit of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

The Obama team had struggled to settle on a CIA candidate after passing over former high-ranking agency official John Brennan in November, largely because he was seen as too closely tied to the controversial policies of the Bush administration.

Panetta would not have complete control over the agency. He would report to retired Navy Adm. Dennis C. Blair, who was picked by Obama last month to serve as the director of national intelligence, a position created in 2004 to oversee the operations of the CIA and the 15 other agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community.

Unlike Panetta, Blair has a long track record in national security matters. He held a series of high-level defense posts, including overseeing U.S. military operations in the Pacific. He also served a year at the CIA as the agency's military liaison. How Blair and Panetta work together could be crucial to the operation of the intelligence community under Obama.

At the CIA, Panetta would face the difficult task of leading an agency with a history of hostility toward outsiders.

Some longtime officials saw the nomination as a signal that Obama was seeking complete political control and feared it spelled a further reduction in the CIA's influence.

The agency, with nearly 20,000 employees around the globe, has seen its role reduced dramatically in recent years in the reshuffling of the intelligence community. CIA insiders have feared the trend will continue under Obama.

As White House chief of staff, Panetta was probably privy to the nation's most sensitive intelligence matters. He also served on the Iraq Study Group, a panel of experts assembled to advise the Bush administration on the war in Iraq.

Nonetheless, previous CIA directors who arrived as outsiders had troubled tenures and often left prematurely amid internal opposition. Among them were John M. Deutch, a former Defense Department official who served as director in 1995-96.

If he gets the job, Panetta would probably be charged with reining in controversial programs approved by President Bush, including a secret network of CIA prisons, the transfer of detainees to countries known to engage in torture, and the use of harsh interrogation methods.

Panetta, a son of Italian immigrants who worked on his family's farm in Carmel Valley, has run the Leon and Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy since returning to private live. He served as Clinton's chief of staff for 2 1/2 years.

Panetta started in Washington in 1966 as an assistant to Republican Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California. He also worked at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and ran the U.S. Office for Civil Rights, later returning to California to practice law.

He was elected to Congress in 1976, representing the then-16th Congressional District until 1993, and served as chairman of the House Budget Committee. He left Congress to become director of the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton.

Panetta left the Clinton administration after the president's 1996 reelection.

Returning to California, he debated running for governor, but was quickly caught up in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, as well as controversies over White House fundraising, Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers and illegal foreign campaign donations. Lewinsky once worked as an intern in Panetta's office.

Panetta's links to the controversies were tangential but politically damaging. He also had few resources to run for governor. And after a career spent in Washington, he enjoyed little name recognition outside his former congressional district.

Panetta would join other leading players from the Clinton administration on the Obama team, including the president-elect's incoming chief of staff, former Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois.

greg.miller@latimes.com

cparsons@tribune.com

Times staff writer Mark Z. Barabak in San Francisco contributed to this report.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-cia-panetta6-2009jan06,0,2811252,print.story

Maybe Obama's choice is a good one given who has their feelings hurt. Possibly he plans some big reforms?

Excellent rules, IMO. Now that the old mods are gone, I may start posting here regularly as I once did. Regards, Dew

Well it may only be me, but you can be outta here if you want to...
You should be able to figure it out.
Nothing else to discuss.
I guess you missed your chance to be Moderator.
Just try to keep it civil when posting.

hey why did you remove me. If it's only you I'm out of here

why am I not still an assistant? Who removed me?

Re: Palestine / Israel

[First part of an interesting post regarding the recent strife. Note the claim that Israel's ministry of foreign affairs appears to be contradicting the current government position that is talked about. There seems little doubt to me that regardless of who started this last round, Israel is using the US leadership vacuum / implicit Bush administration support to use higher degrees of force. I've not had a chance to read the report itself since the link simply leads to the MFA website, and i've not been able to track it down yet.]

Part I. (Cross-linked with Informed Comment: Global Agenda)
by Augustus Richard Norton and Sara Roy

Although diplomatic discussions about a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel have begun, the Gaza war will continue for days, maybe even weeks to come. The U.S. and Israel insist on a “durable and sustainable” ceasefire, in the words of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. This means that Hamas must not only stop the firing of rockets into Israel, but also re-subordinate itself to the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA) headed by Mahmoud ‘Abbas whose silence while Gaza burns is astonishing.


Israel will stress its acceptance of a ceasefire in-principle but will continue to pummel Gaza while the U.S. stiff-arms growing calls for an end to the war. Hamas will on principle refuse any ceasefire that denies its political role or demands its surrender. Meanwhile, the toll in civilian victims escalates in densely packed Gaza, which is already suffering an immense humanitarian crisis ludicrously denied by Israel.

Hamas’ strategic miscalculation in rejecting an extension to a six-month truce with Israel was a gift on a “golden platter” to Israel, as Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit wryly noted. The Israeli security establishment has been intent since its flawed 2006 war in Lebanon to reassert Israel’s hegemony and its deterrent power. But the attack on Gaza may also have deeper causes. Lost in most of the coverage is the fact that the Israel-Hamas truce was working—a fact fully acknowledged in a recent intelligence report released by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). According to that report, “Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire.” Furthermore, “the lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire carried out by rogue terrorist organizations in some instances in defiance of Hamas.”

Yet on November 4, when the world was focused on the U.S. presidential election, Israel effectively ended the “period of relative quiet” to which the MFA report refers by attacking Gaza, killing at least six Palestinian militiamen. Hamas responded to the killings with salvos of rockets. Israel believed that the group was planning to abduct Israeli soldiers through a tunnel it was digging near a border security fence, but whether Hamas wished to risk a successful truce and the possibility of political progress in order to abduct Israeli soldiers is debatable.

The extensive report released by the MFA acknowledges that most of the rockets and mortar shells fired at Israel during the six-month lull fell after November 4.

Why would Israel want to end the truce? The success of the Israel-Hamas truce tacitly legitimized political dialogue with the Islamists, something that Israel (as well as the U.S. and Egypt) vehemently rejects. Equally important, while the truce was holding there was greater talk internationally about possible negotiations and freezing illegal Israeli settlement expansion and moves to boycott products made in those settlements. There were also growing calls for compromises that successive Israeli governments have been unwilling to make. Despite recent comments from outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert linking Israel’s survival to withdrawal from the occupied West Bank, Israel has consistently rejected a viable two-state solution because it insists on maintaining control of the West Bank.

The periodic rain of rockets from Gaza into Israel since November 4 provoked broad public support for military action against Hamas. With President Bush soon packing his bags for Texas, there was also a strong incentive on Israel’s part to capitalize on support from a predictably pliant White House.

Go to Part II
Go to Part III




http://bostonuniversity.blogspot.com/2009/01/end-game-in-gaza-war.html

I thought Soxy did a fine job but it's your board now

Just couldn't bear seeing the board without a moderator and the "assistant" you left.

Thanks for taking the board over and good luck.

EPA 'Cow Tax' Could Charge $175 per Dairy Cow to Curb Greenhouse Gases
Farm Bureau warns just this one rule may increase milk production costs up to 8 cents a gallon.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
12/30/2008 4:55:19 PM

Call this one of the newest and innovative the ways your government has come up with to battle greenhouse gas emissions.



Indirectly it could be considered a cheeseburger tax, but one of the suggestions offered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is to levy a tax on livestock.



The ANPR, released early this year, would give the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas for not only greenhouse gas from manmade sources like transportation and industry, but also “stationary” sources which would include livestock.



The New York Farm Bureau assigned a price tag to the cost of greenhouse gas regulation by the EPA in a release last month.



“The tax for dairy cows could be $175 per cow, and $87.50 per head of beef cattle. The tax on hogs would upwards of $20 per hog,” the release said. “Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain permits.”



Kate Galbraith, correspondent for The New York Times, noted on the Times’ “Green Inc.” blog that such a “proposal is far from being enacted” and that the “hysteria may be premature.”



But Rick Krause, senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau, warned it’s certainly feasible – especially based on the rhetoric of President-elect Barack Obama and the use of the EPA to combat global warming. Such action by an Obama administration would take an act of Congress for livestock to be exempt.



“The new president has been on record as saying that he really supports regulating greenhouse gases out of the Clean Air Act,” Krause said to the Business & Media Institute. “So, we really have to keep an eye on it. Legislation would really be the only way to exempt it at this point – the cow tax.”



Krause said it is difficult to quantify the cost that might be passed directly to the consumer by farmers from the legislation, but predicted it would mean higher costs for dairy production.



“It’s hard to figure what it would do to consumer prices since farmers, unlike other industries, really can’t pass their cost along directly like utilities and things do,” “About the only thing we could realistically come up, in terms of any of this stuff – it would add between 7 and 8 cents per gallon of milk costs to farmers. So it would cost them 7 or 8 cents more to produce a gallon of milk.”



Even the Department of Agriculture warned the EPA that smaller farms and ranches would have difficulty with limits as much as 100 tons annually on emissions:



“If GHG emissions from agricultural sources are regulated under the CAA, numerous farming operations that currently are not subject to the costly and time-consuming Title V permitting process would, for the first time, become covered entities. Even very small agricultural operations would meet a 100-tons-per-year emissions threshold. For example, dairy facilities with over 25 cows, beef cattle operations of over 50 cattle, swine operations with over 200 hogs, and farms with over 500 acres of corn may need to get a Title V permit. It is neither efficient nor practical to require permitting and reporting of GHG emissions from farms of this size. Excluding only the 200,000 largest commercial farms, our agricultural landscape is comprised of 1.9 million farms with an average value of production of $25,589 on 271 acres. These operations simply could not bear the regulatory compliance costs that would be involved.”

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20081230165231.aspx

I saw this once before and it is without a doubt the most absurd thing I have seen lately.. This is an assault on the small dairy farmer. If you want to curb cow emissions how about taxing the things that use the cow products.... like people.. Maybe a tax on every new kid born because they will consume dairy/meat products which will in turn cause more cows to be needed.

Sure why not...

Can we also remove simple cut and paste of articles that do not have any accompanying commentary / interpretation / insight?

New Board Rules
Politics + adults is not an oxymoron

Try to act like an adult.

No vulgarity

No personal attacks, attack the post, not the poster.

No football, baseball or other sports allowed unless politically related.

Use politicians real names, not the cute little made up names so popular among some.

All cut/paste posts need to include a comment of the posters
about what was pasted.

Include links in anything you quote or copy/paste.

That was the total from the hospital, not what the insurance company paid. I'm not sure what that amount was, but it was less.

To me, that makes no difference.

If the insurance company paid only 25% of that, it would still be too high IMO.

Was that the insurance company negotiated rate?

How ridiculous and obscene is this?

A co-worker's husband had a heart attack and was in the hospital for 4 days.

She just showed me the bill.

$144,000 which does not include the surgeon or anesthesiologist's fees.

Richardson drops bid for commerce secretary post
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer Nedra Pickler, Associated Press Writer
6 mins ago

WASHINGTON – New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on Sunday announced that he was withdrawing his nomination to be President-elect Barack Obama's commerce secretary amid a grand jury investigation into how some of his political donors won a lucrative state contract.

Richardson's withdrawal was the first disruption of Obama's Cabinet process and the second "pay-to-play" investigation that has touched Obama's transition to the presidency. The president-elect has remained above the fray in both the case of arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the New Mexico case.

A federal grand jury is investigating how a California company that contributed to Richardson's political activities won a New Mexico transportation contract worth more than $1 million. Richardson said in a statement issued by the Obama transition office that the investigation could take weeks or months but expressed confidence it will show he and his administration acted properly.

A senior Obama adviser said that when Richardson was nominated, he gave assurances that he would come out fine in the investigation and the president-elect had no reason to doubt it. But as the grand jury continued to pursue the case, it became clear that confirmation hearings would have to be delayed for six weeks or even longer until the investigation was complete, said the adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity about the discussions because they were private.

Aides to both men insisted that Richardson made the decision to withdraw and was not pushed out by Obama.

Obama said he has accepted Richardson's withdrawal, first reported by NBC News, "with deep regret."

"Governor Richardson is an outstanding public servant and would have brought to the job of Commerce Secretary and our economic team great insights accumulated through an extraordinary career in federal and state office," Obama said in a statement. "It is a measure of his willingness to put the nation first that he has removed himself as a candidate for the Cabinet to avoid any delay in filling this important economic post at this critical time. Although we must move quickly to fill the void left by Governor Richardson's decision, I look forward to his future service to our country and in my administration."

Richardson said in his statement that he will remain as governor and told Obama, "I am eager to serve in the future in any way he deems useful."

"I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process," Richardson said. "Given the gravity of the economic situation the nation is facing, I could not in good conscience ask the president-elect and his administration to delay for one day the important work that needs to be done."

The announcement came ahead of Obama's Monday meetings with congressional leaders on a massive economic recovery bill he wants lawmakers to pass quickly.

A person familiar with the investigation in New Mexico has told The Associated Press that the grand jury is looking into possible "pay-to-play" dealings between CDR Financial Products and someone in a position to push the contract through with the state of New Mexico.

State documents show CDR was paid a total of $1.48 million in 2004 and 2005 for its work on a transportation program.

Richardson ran against Obama in the Democratic presidential primary, but withdrew after a poor showing in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.

He is one of the most prominent Hispanics in the Democratic Party, having served in Congress and as President Clinton's ambassador to the United Nations and energy secretary. As governor, he has kept up an international profile with a specialty in dealing with rouge nations. Obama also considered him to be secretary of state.

CDR and its CEO, David Rubin, have contributed at least $110,000 to three political committees formed by Richardson, according to an AP review of campaign finance records.

The largest donation, $75,000, was made by CDR in June 2004 — a couple of months after the transportation financing arrangement won state approval — to a political committee that Richardson established before the Democratic National Convention that year.

In the Illinois case, Blagojevich is accused of trying to sell the Senate seat that Obama gave up to become president. Obama and two of his top aides have been interviewed by the U.S. attorney's office pursuing the case but have denied any knowledge of such a scheme and have not been accused by prosecutors of any wrongdoing.

___

Oh no........

Former President Bush touts son Jeb for top job
By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer Ben Feller, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jan 4, 2:46 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Another President Bush?

Perhaps so, says former President George H.W. Bush, who has already seen one son, George W., serve in the Oval Office. The nation's 41st president said Sunday that he would like to see a second son, Jeb, be president one day.

Jeb Bush is the current president's younger brother and a former popular governor of Florida. He is mulling a run for Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.

Asked in a broadcast interview about Jeb Bush's consideration of the Senate seat, Bush 41 said: "I'd like to see him run. I'd like to see him be president someday."

When asked if he was serious, he said: "Or maybe senator. Whatever. Yes, I would. I mean, right now is probably a bad time, because we've had enough Bushes in there. But no, I would. And I think he's as qualified and able as anyone I know on the political scene. Now, you've got to discount that. He's my son."

The former president spoke on "Fox News Sunday" in an interview that was taped Friday in Houston.

He will be at the White House on Wednesday for a lunch with President George W. Bush, President-elect Barack Obama and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

The senior Bush said he does not plan to offer advice to Obama and mainly wants to wish him well. "I talked to him right after the election and did that then, assured him that he was my president," Bush said.

The former president also plans to go skydiving once again, in June, to mark his 85th birthday. He will do so in tandem with an expert. "Just because you're an old guy, you don't need to sit around sucking your thumb drooling in the corner," he said. "Old guys can still do stuff, and that's the main reason."

Kaine to Become DNC Chairman

Va. governor Timothy M. Kaine will operate in part-time capacity until 2010, when he'll take over the job full-time. Go to washingtonpost.com for more details.

Thanks ergo.

Happy New Year to you also!

Happy New Year.

He's gonna need attorney general friends where he's going.

While reading this don't forget; it's for the benefit of the children

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/news/ny-enpens305981832dec30,0,6684496.story?page=3

"It's not in their vocabulary to say, 'I feel badly for the people paying taxes,'" LaValle said of some school superintendents. "I never hear that."

Looks like Plaxico Burris has a new job

Chicago Tribune: Blagojevich to name Burris to Obama seat

yes we will.

I suppose we will see just how arbitrary the economy really is.

LOL......no doubt. I suppose the unfunded liabilities for retirement and healthcare benefits will follow the same path: print enormous quantities of worthless paper. The ultimate government solution.

There's no need to worry though, undoubtedly our trading partners will buy our debt and if they don't we'll just print more worthless paper.

BUSH; Well, I have obviously made a decision to make sure the economy doesn’t collapse. I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.

yeah..just about everyone on a "fixed" income. That's the classic line people use to describe their reliance on Social Security. In other words...I am poor.

We've conditioned people to not save with our entitlement mentality....so now we're are harvesting the crop of despair we planted. Perfect timing too, with our indebted nation now living the economic nightmare our appetite for debt created. Can hardly wait to see how all those soon to be retirees who didn't save for their own retirement like the Social Security system.

No problem for the government. They'll know how to handle the situation. Certainly there's no way to fund it so they'll just inflate their way out of it. A Social Security check 15 years from now will be a joke, more than it is today.

Do you know anyone who reaps the rewards of no savings?

As is common for nations that are about to bomb another nation, Tzipi Livni noted yesterday that the Israeli government had broadcast to civilians that they would be bombing and urged them to leave areas that may be targeted.

I've heard similar refrains prior to other campaigns. For example, President Bush noted that they were warning Iraqis to leave certain areas.

Which always makes me wonder: Where do they think these people can go? Especially the Palestinians, who are not free to leave their country partly because of Israeli policy.

Or we can keep the fairy tale alive and promise what can never be delivered.

We've become expert at pushing into the future a disaster for some distant taxpayer...the ultimate Ponzi Scheme. Why save for yourself when you can reap the rewards of no saving?

Another great reason to cancel SS and have factory workers invest for themselves.

I luv NY: CITY PENSION NIGHTMARE

"The city's five pension funds have lost close to 30 percent in the Wall Street crisis this year - threatening to hit taxpayers like an economic tsunami for years to come, experts are warning."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12282008/news/regionalnews/city_pension_nightmare_146234.htm

the future?

Before my subscription runs out and I can no longer post here, I'm going to take back this 'flag of surrender.'

China has a trade surplus and at the very same time has an economy that grew by leaps and bounds. That makes my contention correct (that a trade deficit is not necessarily good).

From last year.....
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/01/11/china.surplus/index.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/asiaandthepacific/wm1762.cfm

.. happy holidays, Tina ..

that sounds like parents, to me...

It's Christmas

who cares if you're a liberal or conservative right now :)

Happy holidays everyone! even the liberals :)

Conservatives are people who believe the past was somehow better and the future is going to be worse.

As you'll see on another post, I'm late to the party.

Who is that we're calling conservatives?

In my world-language-lexicon, conservatives actually conserve something.

Catch my drift?

Seems the conservatives like to punish and I might add blame the poor. They are an odd lot.

only now just found your thread...

am willing to help, 2-3 times a week.

best wishes & Merry Holidays.

tex

PS: boardmarked, fwiw

ya, see this post re "Bush homeowner policy" + "bankruptcy law":

http://www.bankruptcycorner.com/bankruptcy-news/2008/12/congress-to-ponder-crucial-bankruptcy-law-change-as-white-houses-role-in-meltdown-emerges/

Trouble I see here is only a few-degrees spinoff from the very serious problems limned in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Money-Reckless-Politics-Capitalism/dp/0670019070

I just deleted a bunch of posts and probably should have done it sooner.

There are posts that I cannot delete because they are over 48 hours old.