USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Akira 0]

O'Reilly must have been reading denoir's replies lately apparently..

Quote[/b] ]

O'Reilly: I want you to counsel me, pastor...I'm sitting here, I'm fighting this ferocious battle against people at this juncture who want to change America, all right? They want to change it to de-emphasize religion, they want a country like Sweden where less than ten percent of the population goes to church. Now I believe the Founding Fathers wanted religion in the public marketplace as a behavior deterrent because they knew they couldn't control the population, and they felt that a faith-based population would be more likely to behave. Very practical.

So I'm fighting against these secularists and they're sliming me, they're smearing me. Okay? So I can't go around like you with a happy face all the time, I gotta hit these people right between the eyes. I gotta have negative thoughts because they're bad people and I'm fighting. It's like a war. So I'm not really doing what you advise, am I?

Free healthcare, 200 years of peace, low domestic violence and no religious fundamentalists?

The horror.. the horror..

I interrupted my Xmas celebrations to say O'Reilly is a fuckin' idiot. Whatever he may "believe," the reality is far diffferent (refering to the Founding Fathers).

[ralphwiggum 6]

Another Democrat accepting money from gambling industry.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....04dec25

Quote[/b] ]For most politicians, fundraising is a dreaded chore. But until recently, Rep. John T. Doolittle (news, bio, voting record) of California and other members of the House Republican leadership had adopted a painless solution: fundraising events in luxury sports boxes leased largely with the money of Indian gaming tribes, where supporters snacked on catered fare in plush surroundings as they watched the Wizards, Caps, Redskins or Orioles.

Doolittle, a Mormon, is an ardent opponent of casino gambling, so it is somewhat ironic that he would invite supporters to watch the Wizards play the Sacramento Kings from an MCI Center suite paid for by casino-rich Indian tribes. But the plaque at the door to Suite 204 did not say Chitimacha or Choctaw. It said "Jack Abramoff," a name synonymous with largesse and influence in the GOP-controlled Congress.

Until the power lobbyist's downfall this year, Abramoff spent about $1 million annually in funds largely provided by his tribal clients to lease four skyboxes -- two at FedEx Field and one each at MCI Center and Camden Yards. Season after season, he kept them brimming with lawmakers, staffers and their guests, part of a multimillion-dollar congressional care and feeding project that even the brashest K Street lobbyists could only watch with awe or envy.

Lobbyists entertain lawmakers and their staffs routinely -- so much so that congressional rules limit the extent of it to avoid the appearance of impropriety. But Abramoff and the lobbyists who worked for him took spending for this form of hospitality to unprecedented heights. They used tribal money, records and interviews show, to pay for events that appeared to be designed more to help House Republicans' campaigns and Abramoff's overall lobbying effort than the Indians' legislative causes. Some members of Congress involved actively opposed Indian gambling.

"Jack Abramoff had one of the biggest schmoozing operations in town," said Rob Jennings, president of American Event Consulting Inc., an organization that raises funds for Republicans.

<snip>

oops, got caught in heat and fell to fallacies of GOP. Doolittle was a GOP, not a Democrat. who would have thought GOP would do such things, right?

Quote[/b] ]Abramoff's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement that "Indian tribes made permissible and lawful contributions to underwrite the use of sports suites for various fundraisers. Whether these contributions were properly reported was the responsibility of the campaigns, not the tribes nor Mr. Abramoff."

[Akira 0]

Another Bush promise turns out to be a lie. Oh yes but Kerry is much worse...

Quote[/b] ]Huge returns needed to make up for cutback

By David J. Roberts

Posted January 3 2005

In promoting his plan to create personal accounts under Social Security, President Bush is giving ominous warnings that Social Security faces "bankruptcy down the road" and that "the crisis is here."

His plan would allow younger workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes -- possibly 4 percentage points of the 12.4 percent employer-employee tax -- in stocks or other investments. But if investing this small portion at plausible market-rate returns for safe investments could actually save us from this "crisis," then there must not be much of a crisis.

In fact, Social Security is facing serious long-term problems, but personal accounts could actually make those problems worse.

Most of the new money going into Social Security goes right back out to pay current benefits. Any excess goes into the trust funds, effectively invested in U.S. government bonds at market rates of interest. But, it is projected that around 2018, after many Baby Boomers retire, all the new money and more will be needed to pay full promised benefits. As planned, the trust funds will then start redeeming those bonds to cover the difference.

The Social Security trustees project that around 2042, the trust funds will be exhausted and new payroll tax revenue will cover about 73 percent of promised benefits. The Congressional Budget Office, on the other hand, estimates that the trust funds will be depleted around 2052, and that payroll taxes will then cover about 80 percent of promised benefits.

There are a variety of ways that these long-term problems could be addressed. The sooner they are addressed, the less painful the solution will likely be.

But scary rhetoric is, at least, misleading. Medicare is in far worse shape than Social Security. Yet, instead of Bush proclaiming "crisis," his new drug benefit alone creates an additional, infinite-horizon unfunded liability of around $16 trillion. Moreover, the combination of our budget deficit and our trade deficit threaten a far greater crisis.

The Bush borrow-and-spend budget policies, coupled with huge tax cuts going far disproportionately to the wealthiest individuals, have mired the government in massive new debt. So, we might face a crisis when government needs to redeem those bonds held by the trust funds. But much of our potential crisis results from the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration. Yet Bush would make those tax cuts permanent, while forcing us to borrow trillions more when tax money needed to pay already-promised benefits is diverted into personal accounts.

And, judging from the 2001 report of Bush's own commission, personal accounts wouldn't make up for the shortfalls described above.

The big unanswered question becomes: As you put tax dollars into your personal account, how much will be the cutback in your traditional benefit? A huge cutback in traditional benefits could make Social Security look solvent, but that would require astronomical returns on those personal accounts just to make up for the cutback.

So, why is the Bush administration promoting personal accounts? Consider these possibilities.

Many conservatives believe that it should not be the role of government to provide a safety net. Some view Social Security as a socialist Ponzi scheme. And personal accounts look like a good step toward ending it.

Wealthy investors would probably benefit from increased stock prices. (For smaller investors, the damage to the safety net would probably negate this benefit.)

The investment industry, major Bush contributors, would collect huge fees. This would reward them with a handsome "return" on their contributions.

Many Americans are already convinced of the crisis. There is polling data that suggests that among young people, more believe in UFOs than believe that they will ever collect benefits from Social Security. If you believe that you will likely receive little or nothing, major change is an easy sell.

And, for the Bush administration, this "crisis" offers the additional advantage of directing our attention away from any number of their other policies that are far more likely to result in actual crisis.

David Roberts teaches tax policy, including Social Security, at DePaul University.

Link

Quote[/b] ]Social Security Formula Weighed

Bush Plan Likely to Cut Initial Benefits

By Jonathan Weisman and Mike Allen

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, January 4, 2005; Page A01

The Bush administration has signaled that it will propose changing the formula that sets initial Social Security benefit levels, cutting promised benefits by nearly a third in the coming decades, according to several Republicans close to the White House.

Under the proposal, the first-year benefits for retirees would be calculated using inflation rates rather than the rise in wages over a worker's lifetime. Because wages tend to rise considerably faster than inflation, the new formula would stunt the growth of benefits, slowly at first but more quickly by the middle of the century. The White House hopes that some, if not all, of those benefit cuts would be made up by gains in newly created personal investment accounts that would harness returns on stocks and bonds.

But by embracing "price indexing," the president would for the first time detail the painful costs involved in closing the gap between the Social Security benefits promised to future retirees and the taxes available to fund them. In late February or March, the administration plans to produce its proposed overhaul of the system, including creation of personal investment accounts and the new benefit calculation.

"This is going to be very much like sticking your hand in a wasp nest," said David C. John, a Social Security analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation and an ally of the president. "And the reaction will be similar."

In informal briefings on Capitol Hill, White House aides have told lawmakers and aides that Bush will propose the change in the benefits formula, an approach recommended by his 2001 Commission to Strengthen Social Security , according to congressional aides and lobbyists.

Currently, initial benefits are set by a complex formula that calculates workers' average annual earnings in their 35 highest-paid years and adjusts those earnings up from those years to reflect standards of living near that worker's retirement age. That adjustment is based on wage growth over that time span. Under the commission plan, the adjustment would be based instead on the rise of consumer prices.

The change would save trillions of dollars in scheduled expenditures and solve Social Security's long-term deficit, but at a cost. According to the Social Security Administration's chief actuary, a middle-class worker retiring in 2022 would see guaranteed benefits cut by 9.9 percent. By 2042, average monthly benefits for middle- and high-income workers would fall by more than a quarter. A retiree in 2075 would receive 54 percent of the benefit now promised.

While no decision has been made, allies and opponents expressed little doubt about where the president is heading.

"No decision has been made, but the administration is clearly leaning in that direction," said Michael Tanner, director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Choice. "I don't think anything else is seriously on the table."

A former senior administration official who recently discussed Social Security strategy with Bush aides said the change in the indexing formula "is assumed to be a part of any final solution."

"You've got the bitter medicine of changing the indexing, but to go along with that you've got the sweetener of the accounts," the former official said.

"There will be price indexing," said John Rother, policy director of AARP, the powerful seniors lobby.

The White House has been slowly building the case for the change. Last year's Economic Report of the President, written by the Council of Economic Advisers and signed by Bush, uses the Social Security commission's primary proposal to advocate overhauling the retirement system. Last month, the council's chairman, N. Gregory Mankiw, fingered the current system of "wage indexing" as a primary culprit for Social Security's problems.

"A person with average wages retiring at age 65 this year gets an annual benefit of about $14,000, but a similar person retiring in 2050 is scheduled to get over $20,000 in today's dollars," Mankiw said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute. "In other words, even after adjusting for inflation, a typical person's benefits are scheduled to rise by over 40 percent."

Opponents of the proposal have also been mobilizing. Under an inflation-linked formula, benefits would keep up with prices, but wage levels determine standards of living, Rother said. Social Security benefits currently equal 42 percent of the earnings of an average worker retiring at 65. Under the new formula, that benefit would fall to 20 percent of pre-retirement earnings. Future retirees would, in effect, be consigned to today's standard of living.

"It's like saying elderly people today should live at a 1940 standard of living," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. "Part of our social contract has been to allow seniors to participate in rising standards of living rather than consigning them to some second-class status in retirement."

But proponents say the shift to price indexing has to be viewed with the addition of private accounts.

"If this was a case of just price indexing and doing nothing else, frankly, some of the [opponents'] charges are pretty valid," John said. "But if you give the personal accounts as well, you're giving people the opportunity to make up the difference. Not everyone will do that, but a substantial number will."

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said benefits under a revamped system should be compared with benefit levels that are possible under the current system, not benefit levels that are promised but cannot be financed. "A solution has to be compared to current law, and current law will guarantee huge tax increases or huge benefit cuts, or both," he said.

Administration officials point out that future retirees face two prospects: the amount of benefits the retirees were promised and the amount that can actually be paid.

If workers are allowed to divert four percentage points of their 12.4 percent payroll tax into personal investment accounts, future retirees would probably be able to raise their total benefits above the amount payable from taxes collected at that future time, according to the chief Social Security actuary. But those increased benefits still would not match the benefits currently being promised because future tax levels cannot keep pace with the rapid increase in the number of retirees.

A retiree in 2032 would see a promised monthly benefit of $1,343 drop to $1,231, an 8.3 percent cut from both the payable and promised levels. But by 2052, returns on personal accounts would push total benefits for a middle-income worker to 129.4 percent of the payable benefit, even though the total benefit would still be about 6 percent less than promised because of the rising number of retirees.

Link

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Dems on the Judiciary Committee complained late Tuesday that White House was refusing to turn over documents that illuminated Gonzales' role in crafting memos on prisoner torture. Sen. Leahy, committee's ranking Dem, accused Gonzales of 'stonewalling.'

'In fact, I and other Senators have requested a number of documents from you and other administration officials that have not been released,' Leahy charged.

Missing documents, according to Leahy, include copy of final version of Gonzales' January 02 memo to Bush on whether Geneva Conventions' apply to al-Qaida and Taliban.

WASH POST to report Weds, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE: But one mystery that surrounds Gonzales is extent to which new legal approaches are actually his own handiwork, rather than the work of others, particularly VP Cheney's influential legal counsel, David Addington.

POST claims Addington drafted early version of memo circulated to other departments in Gonzales' name!

MORE

Good ol' Drudge...

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]Free healthcare, 200 years of peace, low domestic violence and no religious fundamentalists?

The horror.. the horror..

   It's not free NOTHING IS FREE IN LIFE SOME ONE ELSE IS PAYING FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE THROUGH HIGHER TAXES!.  

   I can't stand it, every time I hear some one say "free health care" I lose it. Yeah maybe free to you buddy.

[whisper 0]

Quote[/b] ]Free healthcare, 200 years of peace, low domestic violence and no religious fundamentalists?

The horror.. the horror..

It's not free NOTHING IS FREE IN LIFE SOME ONE ELSE IS PAYING FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE THROUGH HIGHER TAXES!.

I can't stand it, every time I hear some one say "free health care" I lose it. Yeah maybe free to you buddy.

Perhaps he himself is paying, don't you think? When he says "free", he means the acts are free, no paying for consulting and being healed.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]Free healthcare, 200 years of peace, low domestic violence and no religious fundamentalists?

The horror.. the horror..

It's not free NOTHING IS FREE IN LIFE SOME ONE ELSE IS PAYING FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE THROUGH HIGHER TAXES!.

I can't stand it, every time I hear some one say "free health care" I lose it. Yeah maybe free to you buddy.

It is free for since I could not otherwise afford it.

At least they are paying much less for it than you.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Free healthcare, 200 years of peace, low domestic violence and no religious fundamentalists?

The horror.. the horror..

It's not free NOTHING IS FREE IN LIFE SOME ONE ELSE IS PAYING FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE THROUGH HIGHER TAXES!.

I can't stand it, every time I hear some one say "free health care" I lose it. Yeah maybe free to you buddy.

Perhaps he himself is paying, don't you think? When he says "free", he means the acts are free, no paying for consulting and being healed.

And the idea being you aren't turned away because you don't have insurance or some HMO says you can't have that medical care.

[Colossus 2]

Quote[/b] ]Free healthcare, 200 years of peace, low domestic violence and no religious fundamentalists?

The horror.. the horror..

   It's not free NOTHING IS FREE IN LIFE SOME ONE ELSE IS PAYING FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE THROUGH HIGHER TAXES!.  

   I can't stand it, every time I hear some one say "free health care" I lose it. Yeah maybe free to you buddy.

Perhaps he himself is paying, don't you think? When he says "free", he means the acts are free, no paying for consulting and being healed.

And the idea being you aren't turned away because you don't have insurance or some HMO says you can't have that medical care.

Socialism man, everyone pays for everyone.

Healthcear for those who need it and school to everyone.

Although we pay high taxes the average income is well enhough to pay the bills and pay for the food on the table.

But trust me, I wouldn't go anymore left then democratic-socialism.

Go Scandinavian states, keep it up

Goddamn I'm naive  

[Billabong81 0]

I just have a question for anyone who lives somewhere where healthcare is free. Is it true unless you have a life-threatening diesease or injury you could have to wait up to 6 months until you see a doctor ? I heard that at school today, but it just strikes me as weird that the wait would be that long. Most Americans have health care and I can go see my doctor (almost) anytime I need to . Thanks !

[brgnorway 0]

I just have a question for anyone who lives somewhere where healthcare is free.  Is it true unless you have a life-threatening diesease or injury you could have to wait up to 6 months until you see a doctor ?  I heard that at school today, but it just strikes me as weird that the wait would be that long.  Most Americans have health care and I can go see my doctor (almost) anytime I need to .  Thanks !

It's not true - but I think that your teacher is mixing the info a bit - at least if he's describing/refering to the situation here in Norway. You can go and see your doctor anytime - but if your illness requires treatment at a hospital you may have to wait for up to 6 months before you receive treatment. Keep in mind that this is only so if your illness is not serious. If it is you'll end up in the hospital in no time at all.

It works pretty well. Not flawless but still pretty good!

[Billabong81 0]

It's not true - but I think that your teacher is mixing the info a bit - at least if he's describing/refering to the situation here in Norway. You can go and see your doctor anytime - but if your illness requires treatment at a hospital you may have to wait for up to 6 months before you receive treatment. Keep in mind that this is only so if your illness is not serious. If it is you'll end up in the hospital in no time at all.

It works pretty well. Not flawless but still pretty good!

Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks for clearing that up .

[EiZei 0]

I just have a question for anyone who lives somewhere where healthcare is free. Is it true unless you have a life-threatening diesease or injury you could have to wait up to 6 months until you see a doctor ? I heard that at school today, but it just strikes me as weird that the wait would be that long. Most Americans have health care and I can go see my doctor (almost) anytime I need to . Thanks !

The only thing people seem to wait for more than few days at most is surgery, those are getting unfortunately crowded due to budget cuts in the early 90s.

[Donnervogel 0]

It's not free NOTHING IS FREE IN LIFE SOME ONE ELSE IS PAYING FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE THROUGH HIGHER TAXES!.

of course it's not free in the end. Everyone pays his part for it. But the idea of it is that anyone can get his surgery or treatment he needs no matter how much money he has and he won't run into dept because of it.

It's the principle of offering treatment to those that need it and not only to those that can afford it.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Confirmation hearings for Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez, began this morning.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/gonzales.hearing/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Alberto Gonzales, President Bush's nominee for attorney general, faced tough questions Thursday from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing focusing on the administration's position on the treatment of prisoners in Iraq and the war on terror.

Gonzales, the White House counsel, is appearing before the Judiciary Committee in the first step of what could be a bruising confirmation process to head the Justice Department.

"Do you approve of torture?" Sen. Arlen Specter, the committee chairman, asked as the confirmation hearing got under way.

"Absolutely not," Gonzales answered.

Gonzales has been criticized over a Justice Department memo on Afghanistan detainees that was addressed to him. In the August 2002 memo, then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee wrote, "We conclude that torture as defined ... covers only extreme acts."

According to Bybee, U.S. law defined "severe" pain as that "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death."

When asked if he agreed with that position at the time, Gonzales told Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the panel: "I don't recall today whether or not I was in agreement with all of the analysis. But I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the department."

He said that the Justice Department was responsible for interpreting the law.

"We asked the question. That memo represented the position of the executive branch at the time it was issued," Gonzales said.

He said he does not now agree with that interpretation and that it does not reflect the administration's position.

When Leahy asked if the president has the authority to override laws against torture and immunize officials from prosecution, Gonzales replied, "The president has said we're not going to engage in torture under any circumstances. And so you're asking me to answer a hypothetical that is never going to occur."

In response to heated questioning by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, Gonzales acknowledged the memo was addressed to him but said he could not recall if he requested it.

The administration has maintained it does not allow torture. Last month, the Justice Department issued a new memo more broadly defining actions that would be considered torture. (Full story)

But critics charge that the administration's policies opened the door to such behavior as the abuse of prisoners documented in photos taken at Iraq's Abu Ghraib facility. (Prisoner abuse timeline)

Gonzales told the committee that he "was sickened and outraged by those photos."

But he said he did not want to provide a legal opinion as to whether the conduct at Abu Ghraib was criminal, citing ongoing prosecutions.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, however, accused Gonzales of hiding behind a "straw man" to avoid answering questions.

"That's malarkey," Biden said. "You are obliged to comment. That's your judgment we're looking at. ... We're looking for candor."

Gonzales also has been criticized for a January 2002 memo that he wrote to Bush. In that memo, he argued the terrorism fight "renders obsolete [the Geneva Conventions'] strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

Numerous civil rights groups have voiced opposition to Gonzales, and a dozen retired military leaders sent a letter to the committee expressing "deep concern" about his nomination. (Full story)

Meanwhile, other lawmakers were open in their support of the nominee.

"You've acted, I think, with the highest honor as White House counsel," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "I have tremendous respect for you, not only as a human being ... but also as an attorney and as someone, I believe, who has tried to give the president the best advice. I stand ready and willing to help you."

In his opening statement, Gonzales said that "wherever we pursue justice -- from the war on terror to corporate fraud to civil rights -- we must always be faithful to the rule of law.

"I want to make very clear that I am deeply committed to the rule of law."

Leahy also expressed concerns about Gonzales' close ties to the White House.

"At a time when the Republican Party has control of all three branches of the federal government, my worry is that the system of checks and balances may become short-circuited by too few checks of assertions of executive branch authority," Leahy said.

"My concern is that during several high profile matters in your professional career, you have appeared to serve as a facilitator rather than an independent force in the policy-making process."

Gonzales told the panel that if he is confirmed, he would no longer solely represent the White House.

"I will represent the United States of America and its people," he said. "I understand the differences between the two roles. In the former, I have been privileged to advise the president and his staff.

"In the latter, I would have a far broader responsibility: to pursue justice for all the people of our great nation; to see that the laws are enforced in a fair and impartial manner for all Americans."

He said that after the September 11, 2001, attacks the government had "fundamental decisions to make concerning how to apply treaties and U.S. law to an enemy that does not wear a uniform, owes no allegiance to a country, is not a party to any treaties, and -- most importantly -- does not fight according to the laws of war."

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/08/bush.journalist/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Tribune Media Services will stop distributing columns written by conservative commentator Armstrong Williams because he received money to promote President Bush's education programs, the company said.

Meanwhile, the nation's largest African-American journalists' organization has asked other media outlets that use Williams' work to do the same.

Williams confirmed Friday that he received $240,000 from the Department of Education in exchange for promoting No Child Left Behind, the centerpiece of Bush's education agenda. Williams said the payment was merely for advertising time.

The department defended the deal, claiming its public-relations contractor "sought avenues to reach minority parents."

"The contract paid to provide the straightforward distribution of information about the department's mission on No Child Left Behind, a permissible use of taxpayer funds under legal government contracting procedures," according to a department statement.

The National Association of Black Journalists also called on the White House to rebuke the department's employees.

In a statement, the group of 4,000 members called on all broadcast and print media that carry Williams' work or use him as a commentator -- a group that includes CNN -- to "drop him immediately."

"I thought we in the media were supposed to be watchdogs, not lapdogs," said Bryan Monroe, a vice president of the association. "I thought we had an administration headed by a president who took an oath to uphold the First Amendment, not try to rent it."

Williams is African-American, but NABJ said he is not a member of the organization.

Tribune Media Services, which distributes Williams' column, released a statement saying it was dropping him.

"Accepting compensation in any form from an entity that serves as a subject of his weekly newspaper columns creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest," the company said. "Under these circumstances, readers may well ask themselves if the views expressed in his columns are his own, or whether they have been purchased by a third party."

Williams' failure to notify TMS of his receipt of the payments violates his syndication agreement, the company said.

Williams told CNN Friday that some might feel his actions were unethical, but "it was advertising."

Still, he acknowledged the appearance of impropriety.

Williams said his company taped a one-minute commercial with Education Secretary Rod Paige, and he had two one-minute commercial spots in Williams' shows. He said many of his affiliates do not use paid advertising, instead airing only public service announcements.

"He's lost his credibility," said Barbara Ciara, another vice president of the NABJ. "He's tainted fruit. And he's unfairly indicted all commentators who have their own independent opinion, don't need a script from the administration and don't need to be paid off."

so let me get this straight. when the incumbent administration is allowed to pay columnist to support its agenda, it's ok?

[brgnorway 0]

It's not free NOTHING IS FREE IN LIFE SOME ONE ELSE IS PAYING FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE THROUGH HIGHER TAXES!.

of course it's not free in the end. Everyone pays his part for it. But the idea of it is that anyone can get his surgery or treatment he needs no matter how much money he has and he won't run into dept because of it.

It's the principle of offering treatment to those that need it and not only to those that can afford it.

LOL - This typing is slow because I'm disabled from using both hands when typing  and a mixture of heavy painkillers provided by the norwegian health authoroties. Yes, I've hurt myself! I've never ever broken anything in my life before - yet it had to happen at work in the middle of the night when there's noone to help. The basic story is like this: I slipped on a wet linolium floor, landed on my head and elbow and got some complicated fractures in my under arm and elbow. Somehow I managed to "knock off the "ball" that goes into the elbow joint. It still hurts a bit despite the fact that I'm using otherwise illegal substances. Im going to have surgery and they are going to use metal screws and pins to attach the bones and the ball joint. I was due for surgery yesterday but there are other unfortunate people in greater need so I have to wait a couple of days.

Thank God I dont have to worry about health insurance!

[denoir 0]

Ouch, sounds painful. Good luck with the surgery!

[bn880 5]

It's not free NOTHING IS FREE IN LIFE SOME ONE ELSE IS PAYING FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE THROUGH HIGHER TAXES!.

of course it's not free in the end. Everyone pays his part for it. But the idea of it is that anyone can get his surgery or treatment he needs no matter how much money he has and he won't run into dept because of it.

It's the principle of offering treatment to those that need it and not only to those that can afford it.

LOL - This typing is slow because I'm disabled from using both hands when typing and a mixture of heavy painkillers provided by the norwegian health authoroties. Yes, I've hurt myself! I've never ever broken anything in my life before - yet it had to happen at work in the middle of the night when there's noone to help. The basic story is like this: I slipped on a wet linolium floor, landed on my head and elbow and got some complicated fractures in my under arm and elbow. Somehow I managed to "knock off the "ball" that goes into the elbow joint. It still hurts a bit despite the fact that I'm using otherwise illegal substances. Im going to have surgery and they are going to use metal screws and pins to attach the bones and the ball joint. I was due for surgery yesterday but there are other unfortunate people in greater need so I have to wait a couple of days.

Thank God I dont have to worry about health insurance!

You're lucky, they will reposition everything properly for you, and you should be okay after a few months of exercise.

I had something worse happen with less than optimal ER here in Canada, but I'd rather not go into that ;p (yeah it was free, no charge incompetence)

[walker 0]

Hi all

Saudi oil businesses are making preparations to switch their oil reserves from being quoted in the US Dollar to the Euro after fears that if Russia switches first they would take a massive hit on their oil reserve values.

Oil companies will probably choose to hedge their current oil price at the current historical high by switching valuations to the Euro.

http://corporate.bmo.com/cm...._03.pdf

Trading in petrol involves enormous sums of money. If the dollar loses its role as a currency of reference, the United States, the world's largest oil importer, will no longer be able to have outside countries finance its abyssmal trade deficit

With its massive foreign debt particularly to China and gigantic deficit the US would be able to do nothing to mitigate the effects.

Quote[/b] ]The RMB may well appreciate, a little, over the next year. But the Chinese have made it very clear that they will take their own sweet time about when to let the currency rise and by how much. So although Americans who don't travel haven't noticed it yet, here's one way in which the dollar's decline really has changed the world: today the U.S. Administration is a supplicant to Beijing. Oh, and by 2008, Shanghai plans to have the tallest building on the planet. That's bragging rights to China, twice over. Get used to it.

http://www.time.com/time....00.html

The real fear of this for the US is that it would trigger a meltdown the value of the dollar to a rate against the UK pound of 3 or even 4 dollars to the GB pound and a Euro at as much as 2.5 for 1 US dollar. Interest rates for loans in the US are expected to double as a result. Gas at the pump ditto.

As a Result more and more US companies are off shoring their currency this means they can pay their workers in the declining US Dollars while pocketing the amount the dollar declines in Euros. This means massive profits for globalised companies such as Ford while they pay their workers a smaller share of the Euro profits.

This though means that the US tax payer will have to suffer lower government services or have to pick up the tax tab for the decline in company taxes.

Sadly Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

I wonder when the American electors will realise they got fooled They forgot the most important factor in electing a government "It's the Economy Stupid."

With the american economy stagnating so badly

Quote[/b] ]U.S. Trade Deficit at All-Time High

By Martin Crutsinger

The Associated Press

Wednesday, January 12, 2005; 10:53 AM

America's trade deficit soared to an all-time high of $60.3 billion in November, reflecting record levels for imports of everything from oil and consumer goods to farm products, the government reported Wednesday.

The Commerce Department said the November deficit was up 7.7 percent from an imbalance of $56 billion in October, which had been the previous monthly record. The new record caught private economists by surprise. They had been forecasting a slight narrowing in the November trade gap.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3144-2005Jan12.html

With gas prices set to continue to soar and attempts to get the Chinese to agree to revalue their currency are doomed the Chinese own too much US goverment debt any time they want to they can pull the rug out from under the US defecit.

How did a Republican administration allow the US economy to to be pulled so far out on a limb?

Sadly Walker

[billybob2002 0]

talk about Bush....

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....mocrats

Quote[/b] ]

Kennedy also mangled the name of the Democrats' new star, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, calling him "Osama bin ... Osama ... Obama."

Serious article but nevertheless...

[ralphwiggum 6]

duh!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/bush.regrets.ap/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush says he now sees that tough talk can have an "unintended consequence."

During a round-table interview with reporters from 14 newspapers, the president, who not long ago declined to identify any mistakes he'd made during his first term, expressed misgivings for two of his most famous expressions: "Bring 'em on," in reference to Iraqis attacking U.S. troops, and his vow to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."

"Sometimes, words have consequences you don't intend them to mean," Bush said Thursday.

"'Bring 'em on' is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing. And those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn't the case."

On other points, Bush said:

He wants Congress to approve major changes in the Social Security program before the end of May. Many Democrats and some Republicans in Congress oppose Bush's proposal, which may entail steep reductions in future benefits.

Baseball's new policy for steroids and other drugs is "a very strict policy and I want to congratulate both parties."

Four years as president have changed him. "They say my hair is grayer. But I come from a pretty white-haired gene pool. At least half of it."

On July 2, 2003, two months after he had declared an end to major combat in Iraq, Bush promised U.S. forces would stay until the creation of a free government there.

To those who would attack U.S. forces in an attempt to deter that mission, Bush said, "My answer is, Bring 'em on."

In the week after the September 11 attacks, Bush was asked if he wanted bin Laden, the terrorist leader blamed for the attacks, dead.

"I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West, that I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive."'

Recalling that remark, Bush told the reporters: "I can remember getting back to the White House, and Laura said, 'Why did you do that for?' I said, 'Well, it was just an expression that came out. I didn't rehearse it.'

"I don't know if you'd call it a regret, but it certainly is a lesson that a president must be mindful of, that the words that you sometimes say. ... I speak plainly sometimes, but you've got to be mindful of the consequences of the words. So put that down. I don't know if you'd call that a confession, a regret, something."

During his second debate last year with presidential challenger Sen. John Kerry, Bush was asked to name three instances in which he had made a wrong decision.

At the time he declined to identify any specific mistakes.

Reporters at Thursday's round-table also asked Bush about the high price tag for his second inaugural celebration and suggestions the $40 million gala, which is being paid for by private donations -- much of it coming from lobbyists and corporations -- be scaled down.

"The inauguration is a great festival of democracy," he said. "People are going to come from all over the country who are celebrating democracy and celebrating my victory, and I'm glad to celebrate with them."

The newspapers participating in the round-table interview were the Detroit Free Press, the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times, The (Portland) Oregonian, the (Little Rock) Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, The Miami Herald, The Kansas City (Missouri) Star, The (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, the Portland (Maine) Press Herald, The Hartford (Connecticut) Courant, the Orlando (Florida) Sentinel, The (Columbia, South Carolina) State, The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and the St. Paul (Minnesota) Pioneer-Press.

[Akira 0]

duh!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/bush.regrets.ap/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush says he now sees that tough talk can have an "unintended consequence."

Yeah...he's a quick one ain't he. :rolleyes:

[EiZei 0]

So, no comments on TBA spending covertly taxpayer money on drumming up their policies?