- RELATED ARTICLES
- > Zeldin Ousts Bishop With 10-Point Victory In Tuesday's Election Nov 5, 2014 11:42 AM
- > UPDATE: Bishop Concedes Race To Zeldin Nov 5, 2014 9:37 AM
- > Bishop Outpacing Zeldin In Donations, Spending Oct 29, 2014 9:34 AM
- > Despite Projections, Bishop Remains Vulnerable In Race Against Zeldin Oct 28, 2014 2:04 PM
- > Tim Bishop Defends His Seat In Congress Oct 28, 2014 1:40 PM
more
Feb 18, 2014 4:42 PMThe Suffolk County Republican Committee tapped a familiar face last week to challenge U.S. Representative Tim Bishop of Southampton for the right to represent New York’s 1st Congressional District—though the nominee most likely will first have to stave off a challenge from a familiar foe from within the GOP.
The GOP’s decision last Thursday, February 13, to nominate current State Senator Lee Zeldin, an attorney from Shirley who made an unsuccessful bid to unseat Mr. Bishop in 2008 before winning election to the State Senate in 2010, also snubs George Demos, another Republican who was seeking the party’s support. In all likelihood, Mr. Demos will challenge Mr. Zeldin in a primary election this June; a primary would ultimately decide who gets the Republican line in November.
“The 1st Congressional District needs one of its own, not someone who’s a part of the bigger establishment, like Tim Bishop or George Demos,” said Jesse Garcia, the chairman of the Brookhaven Town Republican Committee, when reached on Friday, a day after the GOP convention was held at the Ramada Inn in Holtsville.
On Friday afternoon, Mr. Zeldin, who will not be seeking a third two-year term in Albany this fall, issued an email statement confirming that he has accepted the Republican nomination to once again challenge Mr. Bishop, a Democrat. In the 2008 race, Mr. Bishop finished with nearly 58.4 percent of ballots cast, or 162,083 votes, while Mr. Zeldin finished with 41.6 percent of the vote, or 115,545 ballots, according to the Suffolk County Board of Elections.
“We can’t change Washington unless we change the people we send there to represent us,” Mr. Zeldin said. “The unanimous nomination from the Suffolk County Republican Committee shows how united our local communities are going into November’s election.
“Long Islanders are looking for representatives with integrity and a proven record of fighting against Obamacare, cutting taxes, creating jobs and fighting for local needs,” he continued. “That’s what I bring to the table, and that’s what I will continue to fight for in D.C.”
The GOP endorsement comes four months before the Republican primary election scheduled for Tuesday, June 24, that will most likely pit Mr. Zeldin against Mr. Demos.
Two years ago, Mr. Demos also challenged the party’s choice of congressional candidate Randy Altschuler. About a month before the June 2012 primary election, Mr. Demos, a former prosecutor for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission who lives in Stony Brook, announced that he was pulling out of the race to focus on his upcoming wedding, though he remained on the primary ballot. As a result, Mr. Altschuler won the primary with 87 percent of ballots cast.
Kevin Tschirhart, Mr. Demos’s campaign manager, said Friday that the Suffolk County Republican Committee is not accurately representing the wants and needs of the constituents of the 1st Congressional District, which includes the five East End towns, Brookhaven Town, and parts of Smithtown and Islip towns. Mr. Tschirhart also noted that the county-level endorsement will not deter Mr. Demos from challenging Mr. Zeldin in June.
“The party bosses and establishment are out of touch with the rank-and-file of our Republican Party, because we Republicans would never nominate someone who supported Obamacare,” said Mr. Tschirhart as he read from a prepared statement. He was alluding to Mr. Zeldin’s vote in the State Senate related to the implementation of the federal Affordable Care Act in New York State last year.
Additionally, Mr. Tschirhart said Mr. Demos is not concerned about losing potential campaign donations because the Suffolk County GOP has selected a different candidate. “We’re focused on spreading George’s conservative message,” he said.
On Friday afternoon, Mr. Bishop, who is seeking his seventh two-year term of office in November, described the GOP nomination as “meaningless,” noting that Mr. Zeldin must first battle Mr. Demos before either candidate can challenge him in November.
“He’s got a primary against George Demos,” Mr. Bishop said of Mr. Zeldin. “Basically, the Suffolk County Republican leadership can do whatever they want, but ultimately it’s up to Republican voters of the 1st Congressional District to decide who will challenge me.”
He added that he’s not sure why the committee endorsed Mr. Zeldin this early in the year, but offered a guess that the leadership might be trying to persuade Mr. Demos to drop out of the race. Mr. Bishop declined to comment on either potential candidate, saying he did not want to engage in politics so far ahead of the general election.
“For me, I’ve got a job to do and there’s going to be a time for politicking, but that time isn’t now,” Mr. Bishop said. “I’m going to focus on doing the job that I was elected to do.”
Southampton Town Republican Committee Chairman William Wright said Friday that he also supports Mr. Zeldin, noting that, in his opinion, he is now a better and more seasoned candidate than he was in 2008, the first time he took on Mr. Bishop.
“It’s gonna be a great race—I think it’s great for the people to have two good choices like this,” Mr. Wright said. “People have two clear choices for where they want [the district] to go, and Lee and Tim Bishop both can articulate their messages for what direction they want to go, which is good, because there will be no questions when all is said and done.”
He also had a few choice words for Mr. Demos: “My opinion is that George Demos should just go away,” Mr. Wright said.
Mr. Garcia, meanwhile, said the Suffolk County Republican Committee chose Mr. Zeldin because of his leadership experience, both as a member of the State Senate and his prior service in the U.S. Army. Mr. Zeldin served as a military intelligence officer, federal prosecutor and military magistrate until 2007, and currently serves as a major in the Army Reserves, according to biographical information on his State Senate website.
The committee also credited Mr. Zeldin with working to lower state taxes and fees during his time in office, Mr. Garcia said, while maintaining that Mr. Demos failed to “protect Main Street from Wall Street” during his tenure with the SEC. Mr. Garcia added that Mr. Demos is “part of the federal establishment that gave us Obamacare.”
But Mr. Garcia later added: “Last night was more of a testament and it’s always been a testament about the leader that Lee Zeldin is and has been.”
Also during last Thursday night’s nominating convention, the Suffolk County Republican Committee endorsed U.S. Representative Peter King, an incumbent who represents the 2nd Congressional District on Long Island. As it did in 2012, the committee held its nominating convention earlier than normal because the primary elections for the federal races are now held in June instead of September. The party intends to announce its state level endorsements in May.
You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.
Already a subscriber? Sign in
The legend of Tim is a game I'd like to end, as most of lose even when he says we won.
(1) The Federal govt is corrupt and inept (both sides guilty)
(2) The Federal govt is overreaching, overextending, and overspending (both sides guilty)
(3) The Federal government is divided by a party system that doesn't have American citizens as the primary interest. That rounds counter to the intended design. (Both sides guilty)
(4) The Federal govt has proven itself to be a poor manager filled with bureaucracy, corruption and waste. (Both sides guilty)
Result: ...more Many issues that the Federal govt are meddling in are better managed on the state level. Americans should reject further intrusions on their liberties, regardless of the party that is knocking on the door.
My opinion. I'm sure you'll twist this into some kind of endorsement of the Republican party, because of your inability to separate issues from politics. Staying on topic, Mr. Zeldin may be a nice man with good intentions. Maybe he isn't. I don't think it will matter.
Ddddddddddddddddddddd....
I don't know how else to explain this to you, Phil.
Such a wounded lil soul.
ie. You don't want single payer? You must be an anarchist and want babies to die. Prove that you don't want babies to die.
Then they sit in their angry chair and ask mom for another bowl of oatmeal.
Right, guys?
You know who you are.
Then you wrote "I've heard that, but their talking about particular kinds of idiots", you call posters wingnuts...
First of all, stop lying. Of course it bothers you, why else do you keep bringing it up ad nauseum? Secondly, man up (if possible) ...more and get over it all ready. Your juvenile attempt to portray yourself as someone who only takes the high road is an exercise in futility. One only needs to read your posts.
It takes two to tango.
Nothing lost to stop dancing on one's own (without comment).
Of course it is Phil. Poor little Phil the victim was only trying to get the truth out and those big, bad conservatives attacked him. I'm sure it had nothing to do with his posting style and penchant for sniping. Nope, I'm sure he bore absolutely no responsibility for the exchange.
Puh--leeeze! YOU are accusing philathome of habitually making unsupportable, irrelevant, irrationally partisan comments.
On second thought, who better to judge him?
Nick Hanauer explodes the myth of the capitalist 'job creator'
By David Horsey
February 17, 2014, 5:00 a.m.
Especially when it comes to economic policy, too many politicians are motivated by myths more than by facts. A prime example: the myth of the job creators.
Republicans, such as Speaker of the House John Boehner, talk of job creators in reverent, worshipful terms. In their vision of how the ...more world works, it is these brave titans of capitalism who, with no help from anyone else, build the companies that create jobs for American workers. To Boehner and his party, anything that inhibits job creators in their endeavors — taxes, environmental laws, financial regulations — is a job killer.
This is economic theory at its most simplistic and has been proven erroneous, over and over again. A dramatic example: The financial debacle of 2008 that killed millions of jobs was, in large part, the result of bankers and financiers being liberated from federal regulations that had once served as a check on free-market excesses. Nevertheless, conservative members of Congress cling to the myth and continue to call for lower taxes and fewer regulations.
An alternative economic vision is being promoted on the left from an unexpected source. Nick Hanauer is part of the wealthy 1%. He is chairman of a family-owned manufacturing company in Seattle, a venture capitalist who has made hundreds of millions of dollars through smart investments and owner of a private jet and five luxurious homes.
A lot of his money came from being an early investor in Amazon. But Hanauer does not think this makes him a job creator. “Amazon didn’t create any jobs,” Hanauer said in a recent Seattle Times interview. “Amazon probably destroyed a million jobs in our economy.”
The way Hanauer sees it, leaders in our capitalist democracy need to account for the employment-killing side of the modern market where new technologies and efficiencies have eliminated old jobs and not created nearly enough new ones to replace them. In a controversial TED talk in 2012, Hanauer castigated policymakers who subscribe to the false faith that rich people and businesses will provide all the jobs we need, if only they do not have to pay much in taxes.
“I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people,” Hanauer said in his presentation. “But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.
“That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a circle-of-life-like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.”
As a result, Hanauer believes rich people like him should pay more taxes that will fund investments in education and infrastructure that will boost the earning power of the currently beleaguered middle class. He is a particular fan of the $15 dollar minimum wage that, he contends, would increase business activity by putting more money in the hands of consumers.
“Since 1980, the share of income for the richest Americans has more than tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%,” Hanauer said. “If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs. ...
“So here's an idea worth spreading. In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.”
When Hanauer made these remarks two years ago, they went against the prevailing narrative, but many Democrats are seizing on his vision as an alternative to the GOP job-creator myth. In a country where economic ignorance is pervasive, it would not be a bad thing if these competing ideas become the focus of the 2014 election debate.
Z, I think there is something to this line of thinking but I don't think raising minimum wage is the answer. I think it may reduce jobs by pushing companies to think about replacing labor with machines or by simply reducing staff. I believe people should be paid what they are worth and lets face it, ...more there are some people not worth $15 and hour. Don't get me wrong. I don't have a single employee making less than $30 an hour. They are worth every cent but to compel companies to pay a person more than they are worth is unfair. At the same time I know there are companies that will only pay the minimum because they can. In the name of fairness we do need to find a minimum wage that is above poverty wages, I just don't know what that is as it differs from region to region. If the gov't wants companies to pay their employees more, perhaps they can incentivize it instead of mandating it.
Such inequality sows dischord, poverty, and crime. Our economic system as it stands is a dismal failure and our Gini coefficient is shameful. There is no sane or logical reason that such a small percentage of the population can arrogantly and ...more egotistically take so much via self entitlement, and consider the people produced by a society whose infrastructure has been severely degraded as two hundred times less than they are. It's disgusting, depraved, and revolutions have looted, torched, and beheaded for less.
The top is worth 162 times more in the last thirty years? They're worth 1000% more since 1950?
Please explain how this is justified...
Or is it just a double standard which should be accepted without complaint?
I have to disassemble a laptop, and reflow the solder on the motherboard in the oven. Goodnight...
I still think we live in the greatest country. Quotes from Sorkin will not change my opinion. Yes we have our problems but this is still the land of opportunity. Too bad we have a bunch of selfish twats running it.
Z, are you a glass half empty or glass half full kind of guy?
I'm what you call a pragmatist. A problem solver, if you will.
The statistics simply do not support your belief in any empirical way, shape, or form. The only support such a belief has is anecdotal at the present time in our nation's history.
That's a two way street.
As far as statistics, we are currently at a Gini coefficient of darn near 50, we're 17th in global education, 24th in literacy, 30th in math, 23rd in science, 20th in reading comprehension, and ranked 14th overall in the world. If you still wonder about the NPR poll results which resulted in 1 out of 4 people surveyed answering that the Earth DOESN'T revolve around the Sun, ...more look no further than our broken infrastructure.
The only thing we're the best at anymore is putting the highest percentage of our population behind bars.
"We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology."
~ Ronald Prescott Reagan
"One of the strange things in our society right now is that we have all these low-wage workers who are getting $7.50, $8 or $9 an hour, and because they earn such small wages, the government subsidizes them with billions or tens of billions of dollars of social welfare spending that comes from the taxpayer. It's a classic example of businesses' privatizing the benefits of their workers while socializing the costs."
~ Ronald Unz
Additionally, it would be guaranteed companies such as Wal-Mart would not have the majority of it's workers receiving "entitlements" because they are paid such a pittance. No one who works two jobs at least fifty hours a week should earn poverty wages, ...more that's for sure. However you cannot make a serious increase without harming businesses which don't profit in the billions of dollars yearly. The Kleptotocracy has the game pretty well rigged. One thing is for sure, if the minimum wasn't so pathetic, we'd have a better recovery going with the influx of capital it would allow for. People don't make purchases other than the bare necessities when they are unaffordable.
That's not a bad point.
“I consider income inequality the most dangerous part of what’s going on in the United States. You can see the deteriorating impact of that on our current political system, and you cannot talk about politics without talking about its impact on the economy.”
When the majority of the country lacks purchasing power, you cannot drive GDP. This isn't about "class warfare", or "entitlement", or even ...more greed. Well, actually it's a lot about greed and self entitlement, but not by the "poor". We've taxed the "wealthy" and it worked very well. We gave the "wealthy" tax breaks beyond the dreams of avarice, and our economy failed. Warranted it gets more complex than that, but the evidence shows that a progressive tax system worked very well.
For evidence of job creation tied to an increase in the minimum wage, look no further back in history than to 1996.
The "elite" in our society oft do remind me of a petulant toddler...
They've also destroyed that for entire generations. You'll never understand how far removed what you believe is from the truth. Have a nice life in your little test tube of ignorance and selfishness.
A good working definition of Insan... ?
Phil's vision of America - Dependence. Reduction in liberties. Assistance from a the govt to micro-manage our lives. Ignoring corruption and inviting it in the front door. A one party domination regardless of varied perspectives of the ...more rest of the country.
What's sad is things are trending Phil's way, and at the risk of sounding dramatic, this will hasten the pace of America's decay.
Good on you, Philly. Go to work.
Here are some of the the people that own our Democracy:
Duff P. Anderson (1994)
Silas R. Anthony, Jr. (1993)
Andrew Arno (2001)
Peter A. Atkins (1977)
Walter E. Auch, Jr. (2000)
Sara Ayres (2009)
George L. Ball (1975)
Vincent Banker (2003)
David C. Batten (1981)
Bernard Beal (2007)
Robert Benmosche (2002)
James A. Benson (1995)
Jonathan ...more M. Berg (2006)
Alfred R. Berkeley (2000)
Rosemary T. Berkery (2006)
Michael A. Berman (2000)
E. Garrett Bewkes III (1993)
Jessica Bibliowicz (1999)
John Birkelund (1981)
Ronald E. Blaylock (1999)
Michael R. Bloomberg (1995)
Andrew Blum (1972)
Howard L. Blum, Jr. (1986)
Magnus Bocker (2009)
Mike Bodson (2009)
Geoffrey T. Boisi (1989)
Kay Ryan Booth (1999)
Livio Borghese (1977)
Whitney Bower (2009)
Curt Bradbury (2006)
James W. Braham (1999)
Alan Breed (2010)
Joseph Breen (1980)
Howard M. Brenner (1990)
Robert G. Britz (1998)
Michael C. Brooks (1991)
Marianne Brown (2009)
Candace Browning (2008)
Samuel Butler (1974)
Barbara M. Byrne (2011)
Andrew Cader (1992)
John D. Carifa (1992)
Michael A. Carpenter (1990)
William M. Carson (1998)
Jolyne Caruso-Fitzgerald (2006)
Douglas J. Casey (1998)
Arthur D. Cashin (2000)
John K. Castle (1983)
James E. Cayne (1990)
John S. Chalsty (1990)
Alger B. Chapman, Jr. (1972)
Mac C. Chapman, Jr. (1987)
Suzanne Charnas (2011)
Adam D. Chinn (2005)
Todd J. Christie (2003)
Howard L. Clark, Jr. (1981)
Abram Claude (1970’s)
Patricia M. Cloherty (2001)
Sarah E. Cogan (2009)
Peter A. Cohen (1986)
Timothy C. Collins (2007)
Christopher M. Condron (1999)
Anthony Conroy (2011)
Jill M. Considine (2000)
Richard F. Conway (2005)
Langdon P. Cook (1984)
Gerald Corrigan (1989)
Jon S. Corzine (1990)
Michael Cosgrove (2008)
Lawrence Creel (2009)
Noreen M. Culhane (2005)
John N. Daly (1971)
John M. Damgard (1998)
Elizabeth B. (Beth) Dater (2004)
James M. Davin (1983)
Rafe de la Gueronniere (1987)
Francois de Saint Phalle (1980)
Jerry M. de St. Paer (1996)
Richard M. DeMartini (1991)
Ralph D. DeNunzio (1965)
Robert M. Devlin (2005)
Joseph S. DiMartino (1989)
Eric S. Dobkin (1996)
Carl H. Doerge, Jr. (1979)
Donald Donahue (2009)
Robert N. Downey (1988)
Stephen M. DuBrul, Jr. (1975)
Richard B. DuBusc (1984)
John Duffy (1988)
John G. Duffy (2007)
James J. Dunne III (2003)
Dexter D. Earle (1976)
John E. Eckelberry (1966)
Christine Edwards (1997)
J. Anthony Ehinger (1996)
Roger D. Elsas (1993)
Mary Farrell (2003)
Michael A.J. Farrell (2006)
Fred Federspiel (2008)
Laurence Fink (2002)
John D. Finnegan (2005)
Lawton W. Fitt (1999)
Martin Flanagan (2008)
Gregory J. Fleming (2007)
Alphonse Fletcher, Jr. (1995)
Thomas M. Flexner (2000)
Bruce S. Foerster (1983)
William E. Ford (2006)
Archibald McGhee Foster, Jr. (1992)
A. Hampton Frady, Jr. (1973)
Richard S. Fuld, Jr. (1995)
Nathan S. Gantcher (1992)
Neal S. Garonzik (2000)
John J. Gavin (1991)
Peter Georgiopoulos (2010)
Elbridge T. Gerry, Jr. (1982)
Louis V. Gerstner (1987)
William S.R. Gilbreath III (1973)
Jane Gladstone-Wheeler (2010)
Pam Goldman (2010)
Gary Goldring (2000)
Joe Goldsmith (2010)
Arthur H. Goldstone (1982)
Lesley Goldwasser (2004)
Joseph Grano (2002)
Richard A. Grasso (1990)
Peter T. Grauer (2003)
Micah Green (2003)
Alan C. Greenberg (1980)
Robert F. Greenhill (1985)
Martin Gruss (2009)
Randolph Guggenheimer, Jr. (1980)
Edmund A. Hajim (1996)
George E. Hall (2003)
Joseph Hardiman (1988)
J. Ira Harris (2004)
Jon M. Harris (2004)
Joshua Harris (2011)
William Harrison (1987)
Gates H. Hawn (1980)
Edward D. Herlihy (2003)
James F. Higgins (1993)
J. Tomilson Hill (2009)
Landon B. Hilliard III (1996)
Franklin W. Hobbs IV (1992)
Frank J. Hoenemeyer (1982)
Clark Hooper (2003)
George R. Hornig (2006)
Gedale B. Horowitz (1980)
Ruth Horowitz (2004)
Brian P. Hull (2006)
Samuel C. Hunter (1984)
James Hurlock (1989)
Bradley H. Jack (1999)
James A. Jacobson (1988)
A. James Jacoby (2000)
Francis P. Jenkins, Jr. (1988)
David Jennings (2003)
Wm. Mitchell Jennings, Jr. (2006)
Richard H. Jenrette (1976)
Thomas Johnson (1987)
Michael J. Johnston (1984)
William R. Johnston (1994)
Graham E. Jones (1977)
James Jones (1991)
Paul Tudor Jones II (2002)
Thomas M. Joyce (2005)
William M. Kearns, Jr. (1975)
Charles (Kirk) Kellogg (2004)
Peter R. Kellogg (1979)
James C. Kellogg IV (1983)
T. Richard Kendrick IV (2005)
Jerome Kenney (1989)
Hans W. Kertess (1981)
Richard Ketchum (1995)
Candace King-Weir (2010)
Mark Kingdon (2008)
James M. Kingsbury (1969)
Catherine R. Kinney (1997)
Michael S. Klein (2005)
Frederick A. Kingenstein (1973)
William Lee Knowles (1988)
David H. Komansky (2002)
Arthur Kontos (1998)
Doug Kramer (2011)
Peter S. Kraus (2007)
Sallie Krawcheck (2002)
Ron Kruszewski (2001)
Michael LaBranche (2000)
Marc E. Lackritz (1994)
Maria Elena Lagomasino (2005)
Jeffrey B. Lane (1988)
Steve Langman (2010)
Kenneth G. Langone (1996)
John J. Lauto (2007)
John G. Layng (1999)
Alexandra Lebenthal (1998)
James B. Lee, Jr. (1999)
Stephen M. Lessing (2002)
Arthur Levitt, Jr. (1979)
William Lewis (2008)
Robert D. Lindsay, Jr. (2010)
Robert V. Lindsay (1979)
Robert E. Linton (1981)
Martin Lipton (1987)
Bruce Lisman (2001)
Hugh P. Lowenstein (1990)
Nigel S. MacEwan (1972)
John G. MacFarlane III (1998)
John J. Mack (1993)
James J. Maguire (1993)
Thomas (Tom) Maheras (2004)
Andrew Malik (2011)
Amy Margolis (2011)
Donald Marron (1985)
Robert J. McCann (2003)
Robert H. McCooey, Jr. (2006)
Raymond J. McGuire (2005)
Shawn McLoughlin (2009)
Terence S. Meehan (1996)
Doris P. Meister (2001)
Carl B. Menges (1996)
Mitch M. Merin (1995)
Barrant V. Merrill (1981)
Eduardo G. Mestre (1995)
Roberto Mignone (2010)
John Miller (2010)
Howard Milstein (2006)
Joseph V. Missett III (1973)
Robert E. Munchin (1983)
Joseph H. Moglia (2005)
Samuel L. Molinaro, Jr. (2002)
Christopher S. Moore (1988)
John Moore (2009)
Charles F. Morgan (1960)
John C. (Hans) Morris (2006)
Averell Mortimer (2009)
David J. Mullan (2004)
Donald R. Mullen, Jr (2001)
Peter J. Murphy (2006)
Robert Murphy (2003)
Thomas Murphy (2011)
Jeanne L. Murtaugh (2004)
John H. Myers (2006)
Sarah E. Nash (1998)
Kenneth R. Natori (1980)
George Needham (2003)
Crocker Nevin (1970)
Donald E. Nickelson (1981)
Fares Noujaim (2005)
Seth Novatt (2010)
Michael Novogratz (2008)
Edward I. O’Brien (1977)
Timothy O’Hara (2008)
E. Stanley O’Neal (2002)
Michael J. Odrich (2006)
Morris W. Offit (1997)
Vikram S. Pandit (1984)
Paul G. Parker (2011)
Leland B. Paton (1995)
Douglas Paul (2003)
Richard S. Pechter (1991)
Joseph R. Perella (1990)
Norman H. Pessin (1984)
John R. Petty (1988)
John J. Phelan, Jr. (1979)
Peter V.N. Philip (1967)
Thomas L. Piper III (1978)
Michael Pizzuto (1982)
Grant A. Porter (2007)
Christopher Quick (2002)
Leslie C. Quick III (2002)
Peter Quick (2001)
Michael L. Quinn (1996)
Paul E. Raether (1993)
Maribeth S. Rahe (2001)
Lewis S. Ranieri (1987)
Alan C. Rappaport (2006)
Peter S. Rawlings (1976)
Robert L. Reynolds (2007)
Joseph Rice III (2006)
Reuben F. Richards (1973)
Robert Ritterseiser (1985)
Rachel Robbins (1997)
Julian H. Robertson (1987)
James D. Robinson III (1982)
James D. Robinson IV (2011)
Linda Robinson (2003)
Joe L. Roby (1992)
John Roche (1984)
E. John Rosenwald, Jr. (1982)
Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. (2006)
Mitchell J. Rubin (2010)
Robert E. Rubin (1982)
Thomas A. Russo (2002)
Heather L. Ruth (1999)
Michael Ryan (2011)
Thomas F. Ryan, Jr. (1997)
T. Timothy Ryan (2009)
Gregory E. Sacco, Jr. (1983)
William R. Salomon (1971)
Jim Sampson (2010)
Charles S. Sanford (1980)
Ralph S. Saul (1969)
Thomas A. Saunders III (1979)
Anthony Scaramucci (2011)
Peter Scaturro (2009)
Ralph Schlosstein (2003)
Richard J. Schmeelk (1983)
Joseph Schmuckler (2009)
Edward C. Schmults (1979)
Peter Schulte (2010)
Alan D. Schwartz (1989)
Robert G. Scott (1993)
Kevin R. Seth (2011)
Robert S. Shafir (2005)
Gene Shanks (1989)
Mary L. Schapiro (1997)
Robert F. Shapiro (1969)
Theodore P. Shen (1983)
Martin Siegel (1986)
Brandon Sim (2011)
Craig S. Sim (1984)
Hardwick Simmons (1989)
John C. (Hans) Sites, Jr. (1995)
Philip M. Skidmore (1980)
Alfred Smith IV (1998)
Michelle Smith (2008)
Richard A. Smith (1982)
Winthrop H. Smith, Jr. (2000)
Salvatore (Sal) Sodano (2004)
Warren J. Spector (1997)
Esta Stecher (2006)
George C. Stephenson (1991)
James Stern (1999)
James M. Stewart (1982)
Donald Stone (1975)
Thomas W. Strauss (1986)
Mark B. Sutton (2001)
Richard F. Syron (1995)
Anne Tatlock (2002)
Diana L. Taylor (2004)
Michael Tennenbaum (2010)
Pamela Thomas-Graham (2002)
Todd S. Thomson (2005)
Richard E. Thornburgh (2002)
Allen Thrope (2011)
Carl H. Tiedemann (1975)
David J. Topper (2006)
Robert A. Towbin (1975)
Jamie Townsend (2003)
Remy Trafelet (2008)
Michael K. Travers (1975)
Bruce N. Tullo (1983)
Thomas I. Unterberg (1983)
John O. Utendahl (2004)
John J. Veronis (1989)
John L. Vogelstein (2006)
Robert G. Wade, Jr. (1980)
George Walker (2008)
Andy Walter (2010)
Dennis Weatherstone (1980)
Lisa M. Weber (2005)
David Weild IV (2003)
Sanford I. Weill (1980)
Keith S. Wellin (1970)
Curtis R. Welling (1999)
Kim White (2004)
John C. Whitehead (1971)
Meredith Whitney (2010)
Frederick B. Whittemore (1968)
George Wiegers (1968)
Christopher J. Williams (2006)
Dave H. Williams (1987)
Kendrick Wilson III (1995)
Sam H. Wolcott III (1977)
James D. Wolfensohn (1979)
Kurt Wolfgruber (2006)
Frederick Wonham (1970)
Ward W. Woods, Jr. (1984)
A. Jones Yorke IV (1975)
Montgomery Street Chapter
Charles Haynor – Grand Swipe
Robert S. Basso
Richard M. Beleson
D. Kent Clayburn
James F. Dowley
John C. Helmer
Douglas C. Heske
William D. Hobi
John P. Hullar
John T. Hyland
Andrew J. Jennings
David Kavrell
George A. Miller
Francis X. Roche
John P. Roediger
John L. Sullivan
Joseph E. Sweeney
Spring Street Chapter
Warren Wibbelsman – Grand Swipe
James Ford
Michael O. Healy
Kenneth Tang
Your ignorance apparently knows no bounds.
You playing the victim knows no bounds. Stop whining and complaining and get to work. Peace out
The term "one" is generic. It does not, nor did it imply a directive toward you in the appendment. It's nice to know how you take general statements personally. You should really seek some counseling for that...
+++
Sometimes friend of my enemy is my friend. Demos or Zeldin are just fine with me.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws.”
- “On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” ...more
The Complete Perversion of the Law
"But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions.
The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective:
The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results? The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes:
- stupid greed and
- false philanthropy
~ Frederic Bastiat
The locals know and like Tim, trust him to always put Long Island first and are tired of the recycled lies and false rhetoric that, in the case of ...more the !st district GOP races of late, passes for their campaign plan.
Zeldin is a good person and very capable. IHowever, if he allows himself to be manipulated by opportnistic GOP campaign hacks as in recent campaigns, he might as well forget about it. Donors will not through good donations after bad. Get new talent, Lee, and new ideas and you just may have a fighting chance.
Money talks, and...
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley testifies before the House Judiciary Committee.
"I testified at the earlier hearing about the separation of powers, its history and its function and also my view that the president has in fact exceeded his authority in a way that is creating a destabilizing influence in a tripartite or three-branch system.
everyone is color blind in the South, just people who work and raise there children proper with respect and the bums who hold a will work for food sign in the road next to a Burger King with a HELP WANTED sign in the window.
Stop blowing smoke up our....You had five years all you have ...more done is back room deals and raise the debt to 17,000,000,000,000 trillion Plus Now you are cutting the military to Dangerous levels so you can pitch even more stimuluos... ROFL
Your time is quickly coming to an end just worried like in Michigan it will be too late!
Corruption Risk Report: Florida Ethics Laws
Florida statistics versus all U.S. states and territories for federal public corruption convictions include: Ranked #1 state in federal public corruption convictions - five times (1999, 2000, 2001,2004 and 2006) in last 12 years of available data (1999 – 2010), according to U.S. Department of Justice data.
Ranked as ...more a top five state for federal public corruption convictions in 18 of the last 22 years of available data (1989-2010) from the U.S. Department of Justice.
Ranked as a top 10 state for federal public corruption convictions since 1987 (1987-2010), according to available U.S. Department of Justice data.
"Sam Bell is a graduate student in geology at Brown University. He’s also the state coordinator of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats. No, he didn’t chase the National Rifle Association out by throwing rocks, but he did do some digging. He and his group unearthed serious campaign finance violations by the NRA’s state and national PACs. In an interview with Talking Points Memo, Bell explains that suspicions arose after a popular assault ...more weapons ban failed to pass in Rhode Island’s Democratically controlled House and Senate. He learned that the NRA was taking money from its federal PAC, laundering it through its state PAC and giving thousands of dollars to Rhode Island’s top four lawmakers, which is illegal under state law. The complaint from Bell’s group resulted in the NRA paying a large fine and shutting down its Rhode Island PAC."
" there's no obvious reason for me why I think I should not run."
It's the latest quote in a long line of them that all make one thing crystal clear:
Joe Biden would really like to run for president.
RUN JOE RUN
From todays Time online
Spike Lee’s Racism Isn’t Cute: ‘M—–f—– Hipster’ Is the New ‘Honkey’
What’s really bothering Lee is that he doesn’t like seeing his old neighborhood full of white people, which makes him historical detritus.
By John McWhorter Feb. 28, 20140
It’s interesting that the director of the richest oeuvre of black films ...more in the history of the medium doesn’t understand what the Civil Rights revolution was for. In his expletive-laced comments about the gentrification of Fort Greene during an interview at the Pratt Institute, Spike Lee seemed to think that what we Overcame for was to be grouchy bigots.
Basically, black people are getting paid more money than they’ve ever seen in their lives for their houses, and a once sketchy neighborhood is now quiet and pleasant. And this is a bad thing… why?
Why Phil tell us Why?
In a lengthy profile for Politico, Vice President Joe Biden spilled the beans on his high-level control within the Obama administration. Biden said, he the “last guy in the room on every major decision,” People close to both Joe and Hillary say the last 5 years also gave him insight into Clinton’s ambivalence about living in the White House, the shackles of fame and what Biden has described privately as ‘her burden of having to run for president.’”
RUN ...more JOE RUN,
Biden himself has no such qualms. He says that Hillary’s supposed cautiousness means she won’t be a good president: “I’m not sure this is a moment for cautiousness or moderateness,” Biden stated. It’s a complaint Biden has about Obama as well: “Look, I just have more of a populist strain than Barack does.”
Biden believes he is eminently qualified for the presidency, adding, “It’s either going to be me or someone else who is going to make this argument in the Democratic Party
Al Franken
Then Spike Lee gets on TV spewing hate like some sort of ignorant raciest piece of garbage, and you side with him.
You relly are a trip,
Save it Phil, You forget I came from a Latino Country and they don't have crap like these songs down there. Our children learned these songs on the streets of America where my people came for a better life only to lose so many of our youth to gang violence and the rap culture of the streets. The examples are so many and I don't even know if I can sensor them enough I will try, Devils fear this brand new ****. . . . I bleed them next time I see them. . . . I prey ...more on these devils. . . . look what it has come to; who you gonna run to when we get to mobbing. . . . filling his body up with lead, yah; cra*ker in my way; slitting, slit his throat; watch his body shake; watch his body shake; that's how we do it in the mother****ing [San Francisco] Bay. . . . sitting on the dock of the dirty with my AK." "Heat--featuring Jet and Spice 1"; Paris, Unleashed, 1998, Unleashed Records, Whirling Records. "He preys on old White ladies [who] drive the Mercedes with the windows cracked. . . . you should've heard the bit*h scre*ming. . . . sticking guns in cra*ckers' mouths. . . . the cops can't stop it. . . . " "Mad Ni**a"; Menace Clan, Da Hood, 1995, Rap-A-Lot Records, Noo Trybe Records, Time Warner, USA. "We're having thoughts of overthrowing the government. . . . the brothers and sisters threw their fists in the air. . . . it's open season on cra*kers, you know; the morgue will be full of Caucasian John Doe's. . . . I make the Riot **** look like a fairy tale. . . . oh my god, Allah, have mercy; I'm killing them devils because they're not worthy to walk the earth with the original black man; they must be forgetting; it's time for Armageddon, and I won't rest until they're all dead" "Goin Bananas"; Da Lench Mob, Planet of da Apes, 1994, Priority Records, Thorn EMI; now called The EMI Group, UK. and I could give you more disgusting examples of this garbage all night long go look on the net for yourself - this has to stop!
LOL I musta missed that c-dizzle
haa
All these Hispanic gang bangers are mostly the children of good hard working migrant workers who came here (legally or not) in search of the American dream" They are not bad kids but they never have a chance in the current urban hip hop culture
As UD correctly pointed out these disgraceful lyrics and culture are poisoning our youth.
These self proclaimed "gangsta" rappers need to stop... 99 % ...more of these rappers are from poor black neighborhoods thats why are jails are disproportionately full of young black men... and yes I believe we need to stop making excuses for it.
73 % of urban black baby's are being born out of wedlock, fathers long gone before these children even get a look at them. No role models, No personal responsibility.
Yes I said It
"If i was a responsible hard working person of color living in a big city I would be even more pissed off that these rap lyrics were giving me a bad name" I said It and you would think if Phil really cared about these kids he would agree.
They don't learn how to speak properly or dress properly, most of them have no respect for themselves let alone there elders and then they don't understand why they get a bad rap... Maybe they should look in the mirror.
Its time we demand better from these "Entertainers" The unemployment rate for young black men in these neighborhoods is over 42% and the culture rubs off on all of our children unfortunately due to it being concentrated in poorer neighborhoods Hispanic youth is effected the most by the collateral damage.
Our corrupt big city's are in trouble and like Michigan the mindset must change before its too late.
"the conservative requirement to adhere to their definition cultural norms shows a rejection of diversity. ???
conservatives come in all colorers if you do not like living in the greatest country ever devised then move instead of trying to bring down the country with hate like those songs you wont seem to rally against.
Narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic.
By Chris Mooney
"...an inordinate emphasis on sports and entertainment, a fixation with lifestyles of the rich and famous, political corruption, and the loss of a moral compass."
“If we would spend on education half the amount of money that we currently lavish on sports and entertainment, we could provide complete and free education ...more for every student in this country.”
"The question is, can we learn from the experience of those nations the preceded us and take corrective action, or must we inexorably follow the same self-destructive course?"
And my personal favorite:
“Anyone who can't learn from other people's mistakes simply can't learn, and that's all there is to it. There is value in the wrong way of doing things. The knowledge gained from errors contributes to our knowledge base.”
The latest:
65 foot crack discovered in Washington State dam
Maybe Putin will go away if we offer him free food stamps.
Once agains you disagree just to disagree.
You don't have to go."
Are you dense Phil? I am against any action in Russia. Show me where I was beating the war drum. You see and read what you want and that is why I will not waste my time answering your questions. They are all trap questions. I will have better luck banging my head against the wall for a few hours but then I would only be as smart as you.
Go ahead, live a life of Deuteronomy and Leviticus wholesale, instead of cherry picking what in the F*** you want to believe.
Get back to us after you've run the gamut...
I would hope so
How does the quote go, "this is how freedom dies, with thunderous applause"
I was correct that you would use more of my words towards you against me. Can't fault you for trying but it is boring me and probably anyone else reading this thread. It obviously bothers you though.
Quote:
"Rand Paul- who would have not voted for the civil rights act."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor would I nor any other Liberal seeing that the Supreme Court has construed it to establish privileged minorities and "benign" discrimination against white people in clear opposition to the language of the law and in violation of the very purpose for which our ...more constitution came into existence, EQUALITY. Not to mention that its execution has handed over the entire South to the reactionary Right-Wing whose constituency just doesn't like it that there is a federal law that limits its opportunity because of its skin color. How selfish of them!
This is the most pernicious, invidious legislation that has been passed in my lifetime. Every candidate for office, Liberal or Conservative, should advocate its repeal.
There is a marvelous little article on this phenomenon: "Privilege Before the Law" by Paul Craig Roberts which you can google. (Were this any other newspaper forum, I'd give you the link, but the Southampton Press & Dry Goods Co. would only erase it.)
Obama drawing another red line with his crayon, and running down the street to the Hilton for a Happy Hour fundraiser while Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine was embarrassing.
thats over 55,000 per year
sounds pretty generous to me
"Every child had a pretty good shot
To get at least as far as their old man got.
but something happened on the way to that place
They threw an American flag in our face..."
You three always attack the business man $22 to $30 for cutting grass (If thats what Joe company does) sounds very fair.But I suppose he is supposed to be in business to share ...more the spoils of years of risk & hard word down to the last nickle. You people crack me up you should move to communist China.
You do not deserve to live in America
Thanks Mets, Sorry for creating fair paying local jobs... it good to be appreciated.
what did you do today?
Bottom line is you have no idea what the relationship is between Joe and his employees. He is paying well above minimum wage ...more and should be commended, not condemned. There are many employers that don't come close to that pay scale.
what in my statements is an untruth or an exaggeration of economic realities of today.
1. "Nobody is working like that with 22 degrees in March" ...trust me everyone that works any kind of construction or service business out here gets way over their 2080 hours per year.What does it matter if its all in 9 months or over 12
2. "Another rip-off business" Really based on what I will be waiting for my apology.
when ...more whatever your smoking wears off
3. Never picked up a worker at 7-11 in 23 years
Whats you beef pal ...
Only a complete idiotic, moronic, unintellectual, uninformed, brainwashed, total and complete fool would defend an economic system, and situation as such.
Seems we have a plethora of those who qualify...
How do we fix that? I think it was you that wrote that the minimum wage needs to be $21. When it does gets raised it will probably go up to around $10. How do we fix that disparity? Do you think it will?
And yes, he has a more than impressive resume.
Coming up short, as usual. Try this on for size:
The State of Working America, 12th Edition (Mishel, Bivens, Gould, and Shierholz)
"I should write a book on how to get by on $500 million, because apparently there's a lot of people who don't... know how to ...more do it."
~ Warren Buffett
"Unskilled labor" is a term which makes it viewed as a liability to business, and that does not help. You want better quality workers? Invest in the education which is sorely lacking in this country, and FAR too expensive to obtain. There's plenty of money out there to invest. They've printed well over 11 trillion dollars worth of it.
When it comes down to it, it's all about the money and power, and the "skills" are a snowblind.
Remind us how in 1996 raising the minimum wage created jobs? Because it did. Saying it will kill them is fear mongering and unsubstantiated assumption. The CBO is sitting on the fence on this one. Online warehouses killed more jobs than a raise to the minimum wage would. Metadata across the board shows no adverse effect, and in fact often shows a positive result.
That "oil boom" will be the death of this planet. The industrial revolution has been over for quite some time...
You can have a great product or service, but if you can't drive volume because people can't afford it, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
1. Ferdinand Porsche designed a hybrid car in 1898
2. Sony introduced the first consumer-grade video tape in 1975
3. Fujitsu released the first 32-bit gaming system in 1993
4. Xerox invented the graphical user interface (GUI) years before Apple and Microsoft made it the standard
5. Apple created "HyperCard" in 1987
6. Sony invented the MiniDisc back in 1992
7. ...more Apple invented the first PDA in 1993
A degraded infrastructure provided by hubris does not provide those things.
Which do "We" have?
wow that from cnn
10 million scallops are dead; Qualicum company lays off staff
"...carbon dioxide levels have increased dramatically in the waters of the Georgia Strait, forcing the PH levels to 7.3 from their norm of 8.1 or 8.2."
"(The high acidity level means the scallops) can't make their shells and they are less robust and they are susceptible to infection," said Saunders, who also said this level of pH in the water is not ...more something he's seen in his 35 years of shellfish farming."
Any lacking on your part is your problem.
Phytoplankton is the basis of the food chain, and it is suffering due to acidification (hypercapnia). Deformation of their shells is only the beginning, and if we ...more lose the phytoplankton we will most likely lose the ocean food web. And, if the oceans go anoxic life will have to reboot like it did after the Permian extinction. But, before that you'll find that disease and vermin breeds like rabbits in warmer climates. Also, the release of significant amounts of methane hydrate from the tundra and the ocean floor could be catastrophic. Methane is the WORST greenhouse gas known to man, and has at least 23 times the heat trapping potential of CO2.
We know which carbon is anthropogenic, and how much is not by the measurement of radioactive isotopes. Fossil fuels have a different signature than volcanism or wildfires. We are having a major impact, and the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere is tricky business. We will exceed 400 ppm in the next decade, and eighty PPM is a significant change. 150 PPM is enormous. 700-1000 PPM will turn this planet into a hothouse. 1000+ PPM WILL wipe out almost all the terrestrial and most of the marine life on the planet. The Permian extinction 250 million years ago is proof of that. Incidentally, Middle Eastern and Texas oil reserves were created around that time. For reference, abiogenic petroleum has pretty much been debunked and it would be interesting if we found bacteria in the atmosphere of gas giants floating around like it does here on earth.
But let's keep doing what's "cost effective" in the short term...
That is an interesting thought and something I have never thought of.
Perhaps Andromeda is straining to get out?
Just a thawt . . .
.
.
.
.
[ . . . those who repeat history, expecting different results, . . . . ]
.
.
.
Look, the bottom line on this is Russia has a real leader. You may not like him, and I don't, but he is brilliant and ruthless, he has clear goals and he moves straight toward those goals. The West lacks a leader. Like it or not, the president of the United States is the de facto leader of the West, and our president just is -- he's incapable and unwilling to lead.
The weakness ...more is phenomenal. Now, you know, we are not weaker than we were in the Carter years. I was in that military, it was pathetic. Our military today is the best in the world, best in our history, although Obama wants to dismantle it. We're also immensely wealthier than the Carter years. The problem is, that as a president Obama is far weaker than Carter, and he's probably the worst president we've ever had.
He is a man who's incapable of making a hard decision. And by the way, one other key point, Vladimir Putin believes in Russia. He believes in Russia's destiny, its mission. Pbama does not believe in American exceptionalism. He does not believe in this country.
Btw - I haven't met anyone whose insurance went down unless they ended up receiving lesser coverage. Mine went up $300 per month and my copays went up 35%.
You seem think its so easy.
Last time I checked McDonald's and Home depot where starting people at half of what I do so go harass them for a while.
These guys did not come here with h21 ...more visas you know... But they treat me fair and I return the favor, most of there wives work as well and you keep sticking to this $22 per hr figure when I originally said 22 to 30
So go play in traffic
When the atmosphere here, the civility of the discussion, devolves to the point of multiple successive comments being deleted, a comment of
DEJA VU
not only adds to the discussion, such as it is (not), but attempts to get all of you to mind your manners and be as civilized as you expect "the other side" to be!
Really!
You might learn something here about perception, impulse control, impatience and anger?
Have a magical day
What a presumptuous thing to say about our Ted. All true Republicans know that he is the man of the hour.
: Here is the good news. The majority of people in this country have common sense. The problem is they have been beaten into submission, you know the PC Police and all these people, and people are afraid to speak up for what they believe. And, you know, one of the principles of Saul Alinsky, he said you make the majority believe that what they think is outdated and nobody thinks that way and that the way they think is ...more the only way intelligent people think. And if you can co-opt the media in the process, you're far ahead of the game. That's exactly what's happened, and it is time for people to stand up and proclaim what they believe and stop being bullied. Also, we have got to get back to the same mentality that Americans had in the pre- Revolutionary days. They got together with their friends and their neighbors and their associates and they talked about what kind of America do we want to have, what we want to pass onto our children. And they encouraged each other, and that is how a bunch of ragtag militia men defeated the most powerful army in the world at that time. You need to go out and talk to people. Everybody you know, have a discussion. Don't let the left shut you up.
Second-place finisher Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz !
Third-place finisher was Dr. Ben Carson!
Followed by some Rino from jersey that hhs picked for us, I forget his name .
and next was the Honorable Wisconsin . Gov. Scott Walker !
The apple fell far from that tree.
You want a real hero? Try this guy:
Samuel Taliaferro Rayburn
Although many Texas legislators were on the payroll of public service corporations, Rayburn refused to do so. As he recounted in a speech during his congressional campaign:
"When I became a member of the law firm of Steger, Thurmond and Rayburn, Messrs. Thurmond and Steger were representing the Santa Fe Railroad Company, receiving pay monthly. When the first check came after I entered the firm, Mr. Thurmond brought to my desk one-third of the amount of the ...more check, explaining what it was for. I said to him that I was a member of the Legislature, representing the people of Fannin County, and that my experience had taught me that men who represent the people should be as far removed as possible from concerns whose interests he was liable to be called on to legislate concerning, and that on that ground I would not accept a dollar of the railroad's money, though I was legally entitled to it. I never did take a dollar of it. I have been guided by the principle in all my dealings."
This practice of refusing to accept fees from clients who had interests before the Legislature was "virtually unheard-of" at the time. Later, while serving in Congress, a wealthy oil man had a very expensive horse delivered to Rayburn's farm in Bonham. No one apparently knew the oil man delivered the horse except him, Rayburn, and a Rayburn staffer. Rayburn returned the horse.
~ Courtesy of Wiki
(CNN) - Sen. Rand Paul cut another six-figure check to the United States Treasury Wednesday, taking the money he said he didn't need from his office's budget to make a tiny dent in the nation's massive federal debt.
Last year Paul returned $500,000 to the Treasury, and said he hoped other members of Congress would follow his cost-cutting lead. In total, Paul's office says they've returned $1.1 million that was unspent from his office's operating budget.
Since ...more his daddy Congressman Ron Paul did the same thing year after year after year, I would say the apple fell fairly close to the trunk.
He ain't got the cogliones his father had. Maybe he'll get them as he grows up.
It's unclear how she managed it, but a woman who is thought to have died in 2008 apparently voted in the 2010 midterm elections. That woman: Pia Farrenkopf, believed to be the identity of the person found mummified in a garage in Pontiac, Mich. Voting records show Farrenkopf a registered Democrat voted in 2010,
Just show ID its not that hard
Pesky, dishonest Republican at play, eh?
By Captn America (3398), Barack Obama's America on Mar 12, 14 8:38 PM
"Clean and Fair"?
End corporate personhood, and maybe, just MAYBE that would possibly become fair, true, and accurate.
It’s rare in politics that anything other than a presidential contest is viewed as a “must win” — but the special election in Florida’s 13th District falls into that category for Democrats.
A loss in the competitive March 11 contest would almost certainly be regarded by dispassionate observers as a sign that President Barack Obama could constitute an albatross ...more around the neck of his party’s nominees in November
How many people have they shuffled into Medicaid and they are counting as enrollees in Obamacare? I guarantee you that number will be shocking.
In Alex Sink, Democrats had a better-funded, well-known nominee who ran a strong campaign against a little-known, second- or third-tier Republican who ran an often wobbly race.
RNC chairman Reince Priebus: "His victory shows that voters are looking for representatives who will fight to end the disaster of Obamacare, to get Washington to spend our money responsibly, and to put power in the hands of families and individuals. In November, voters all across ...more the country will have the chance to send the same message that Pinellas County voters have sent: Democrats' policies are not working for America."
IT BEGINS: REPUBLICAN WINS FL CONGRESSIONAL SEAT...
Democrats 'have reason to worry'...
FLASHBACK: Race Dems Can't Afford to Lose...
Axelrod 'explains'...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WSJ/NBCNEWS POLL: Obama hits new low..
Republicans also spent well over 11 million dollars on ads, and vilification of Alex Sink. Plenty of "dark money" flowing in. Here are some basics to chew on, and don't go blowing this out of proportion. It really was a degenerate effort on the part of Republicans, and voters:
Only 39.08 percent turnout. Of the 477,635 active, registered voters in the county only 186,650 people ...more could be bothered to vote.
88,294 (48.43%) voted for Jolly, 84,877 (46.56%)voted for Sink, a difference of 3417 votes.
8,799 voted for a Libertarian candidate.
37 percent of voters in FL13 are registered Republican, 35 percent Democrat and 24 percent independent.
Dems — including the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and House Majority PAC — also sprung to Alex Sink’s defense, but ...more their combined $3.7 million advertising blitz could not help lift her over the finish line.
In all, Sink and Jolly controlled less than one-third of the $12.7 million that was pumped into the race.
As for the candidates share, Jolly didn't raise half as much as Sink — $1.3 million versus $2.7 million — according to a Center for Public Integrity review of Federal Election Commission reports.
Still, that's a lot of one dollar, one vote...
~ Henry Rollins
~ FDR
Funny, a new person throwing the "Deja vu" stone!
Deja Nu!
The country has seen the last 13 years of the same BS lets restore this Republic to a proud Nation once again
Sheila Jackson-Lee; Yale '72; B.A. Political Science ???
And the Libs say that GWB is dumb.
Compared this commie, the guy, who says that there are 57 states, and the other guy, who thinks Putin is a 19th century dictator, GWB looks like a member of Mensa.
~ Wendell Berry
Idus Martii
Cave
Satellite data shows hijacked MH370 was last seen flying toward Pakistan OR Indian Ocean as investigators search pilots' luxury homes and reveal one had home-made flight simulator
I held my thoughts on this for 9 days put I think It is time we consider the obvious
It really looks like someone knew exactly what they were doing.
Almost 10% of the passengers on that plane work for Freescale Semiconductor.
"Freescale’s ...more commercial products can meet the requirements of applications such as avionics, electronic warfare, and battlefield communications," according to the company’s website.
If that door they supposedly found floating in the ocean was blown at 45,000 feet, they are no longer with us unless they had oxygen.
CNN Is all over the place on this one
I try to avoid getting my news from Rupert Murdoch...
By Stuart Williams
Klimentyev).Moscow (AFP) - A leading anchor on Russian state television on Sunday described Russia as the only country capable of turning the United States into "radioactive ash", in an incendiary comment at the height of tensions over the Crimea referendum
Wonderful... Keep cutting that defense budget to finance more spending
Did you see the Zack Galifianakis interview , How embarrassing for the President to participate in. Its shameful at best
And, get a sense of humor. Puritan levels of propriety are vastly overrated.
There are so many impotent, ankle-biting homunculi about that they should form their own party. Oh, wait, they HAVE!
Well well well why does that not surprize...
Wonder where it could have been headed flying so low avoiding India
I Wonder? Any ideas
He declares "Fifteen years ago, I was honored, as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, to lead the fight for Poland's admission into NATO."
In fact, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) led the fight for Poland's NATO admission.
Poland joined NATO in 1999.
Biden served as chairman from 2001 to 2003.
What an embarrASSing buffoon. ...more
Not to worry, I am confident that the extremist Right-Wing can field any number of psychopathic, egomaniacal presidential candidates just like the Russian premier whom it admires. Someone who will throw down and reach for his nuclear weapons rather than "just talk".
Maybe you have a point we could send
Dead Fish Emanuele and Tony Rez to deal with Putin.
Maybe Bill Ayers can go do what he does best at the Kremlin
How about sending Jimmy Carter with another reset button
Sending Billy Ayers wont work... Declassified FBI Report on the Weather Underground Organization clearly states Bill had extensive stays in Communist countries of Cuba, Vietnam and Russia; WUO's goals to establish "world communism" and "overthrow capitalism" in "imperialist" America; murder conspiracy; involvement in US Vietnam-era Chicago riots; ties to the PLO, Quebec Liberation Front, SDS, Black Liberation Front and Black Panthers; meeting ...more with North Vietnamese in Cuba; bomb factories; purchase of 50 pounds of dynamite; shooting down a US plane in Vietnam and wearing a necklace made of a piece of the plane's fuselage; firing rifle shots into a Massachusetts Police Station; and a wide variety of other serious crimes and radical connections.
or i guess nobody wanted to vet this man.
it is amazing, and also amazing is how some people on this site could care less.
where did you get that picture? is it really obama and that ayers creep back at collage?
W was know better, at least Regan stood for something
We need a man like Rand Paul to reach across the aisle and clean house!
By pstevens (346), Wilmington on Nov 6, 08 ...more 11:04 AM
If McInerney knows somthing thats good enough for me
Its starting to look like we will not have to find this plane... It will find us
Really It was amazing to watch him do something he has passion for
So fluid and decisive
very telling
But I am guessing it is a mild depression realizing he is going to lose the senate due to ObamaCare
More than four months after its scheduled launch and despite receiving $305 million in federal grants and spending at least $160 million on the website, Cover Oregon has not enrolled anyone.
Hat Head did not understand. We are not going anywhere Pal...
Thursday, March 20
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Public Approval of Health Care Law Pew Research For/Favor 41, Against/Oppose 53 Against/Oppose +12
Thats right Joe We are here to stay!
Thanks for dropping by hat, Bu Buy
Quote:
"We are here to stay!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said you weren't. You are the political hippies of the aughts. The vast majority of Americans will look back on you as we do the love children now, except that you will be remembered for iconic meanness rather than for childlike trust. When mainstream America has long since accepted health care ...more as a right, you will be toothlessly grumbling that no one takes personal responsibility anymore, even as a health care worker changes your diaper.
This is a tax in disguise it is class warfare and
in fact it is Robert Reich, You ,Z and P that are much better aliened with the flower children
DeGeneres said "everyone's very grateful" for Obamacare. She gushes, "It’s doing very, very well...you’ve got 5 million (?) people signed up so far. [Applause] An enormous number of people have signed up, so it’s successful....Well, for people who are starting to applaud here, I think everyone’s very grateful that you did this."
O M G
Mon Dieu! What do you have against the French, our revolutionary allies without whose assistance we would likely still be British subjects? By comparison, we Liberals are quite fond of the French, whose nation was the creche of the modern concept of political equality upon which our nation is founded and which is the core of Liberalism.
You also seem to have completely forgotten that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are quintessential ...more Liberal political documents.
Moreover, while your antipathy towards the French and "by proxy" (to use your terminology) the ideals of our Founding Fathers is puzzling, your ignorance as to the inavailability of medical care to the poor is astounding.
However, one understands that it is comforting to the prejudices of the mean to believe that there meanness doesn't REALLY kill people.
They have on 3 separate occasions had a guest one that I have heard with my own ears! Say, " everyone wants to find this plane in the South Indian ocean or It would be wonderful if we found this plane of the coast of Australia" ? I ask WHY !
Wouldn't CNNs guest rather find these people are still alive (even if they are hostages in Pakistan of Iran)
Even ...more something as fundamental as a search and rescue operation is being shaped by the liberal news outlets.
Listen, we know that the transponders were shut off manually by someone and the plane was last headed toward yes Pakistan. the pilots name is in fact Fariq Abdul Hamid, 26 and THAT seems to me to be CNNs problem.
From the last satellite ping we know ONLY that the plane was somewhere on a large circle, either north or south of the last point based on previous radar hits (NOT that it was "headed toward yes Pakistan").
Your private agenda is tiresome.
What if this plane is in the hands of radical Muslims loading it with enough dirty bomb material to "Wipe Israel of the Map"
Isn't that what Iran keeps promising to do.
It is you private agenda of burying your head in the sand that grows tiresome...
Honest to goodness Progressives gave us the Safe Food and Drug Act, National Parks, anti-trust legislation, and worked hard to keep corporate influence on politics at bay.
Whatever you think a "progressive" is, it's not even close to your fool statement.
[wave]
And, it would surprise you to know there are more than just me.
"We, the People" ~ 1776
As someone who was raised Roman Catholic, I do think that in some ways religion has held back human development over the eons. BUT, there have always been people who are good BS detectors like Galileo, et al. Before the Periodic Table, there was Earth, Air, Fire, Water, and later Aether. Before the understanding of Earth's axis, rotation, and orbit there was polytheism to explain Nature and the seasons. Frankly, from what I ...more know of theology and it's history (Sumerians, Phoenicians, Minoan, Persian/Mithraism/Manichaeism, Olmec, Aztec, Mayan, etc, etc.); I must conclude that belief in an omnipotent being which has never confirmed it's existence, other than the anecdotal musings of a "Good Book" translated multiple times and severely edited is even the slightest bit credible. Calling it a "leap of faith" doesn't even come within a few billion light years of close. I'm not afraid to call anyone who believes in an omnipotent being not only delusional, but clinically psychotic.
There is no "God", and the sooner such primitive nonsense is put behind us the better.
Sounds like "good conscience" to me...
~ Francis Bellamy
Do you really want to have this discussion again .
There is a very good reason that our Pledge of Allegiance refers to our country as a Republic and there is a very good reason that our Declaration of Independence and our constitution do not even mentioned the word "democracy".
You are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is of course completely untrue.
The Founders were extremely ...more knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life.
They knew very well the meaning of the word "democracy", and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a SERVANT of the people, and obliged to its owner,
We the People!
Joe, would it interest you to know that for the first century of our country's existence corporations were prohibited from participation in civic life? No donating to political campaigns, no influencing elections, no purpose other than to conduct their chartered purpose. People like Libertarians who are operating under the premise "One Dollar, One Vote" need not ...more apply for citizenship. Such conduct was considered despicable, and not tolerated.
They feared not monarchy or democracy so much (incidentally the only real difference is inalienable rights in a Republic vs. a Democracy), but the commingling of government and corporate power. A prime example would be the Oligarchy created by the English Crown, and the Dutch East India Company. The "Tea Party" was not just about taxation, it was an anti-corporate revolt. Which, I must add, is what makes Plutocrats/Oligarchs like Koch brothers funding the Tea Party to influence our government so blatantly ridiculous and completely UN-American.
There is a difference.
You're blathering again, propounding puerile misconstructions of Liberalism and Progressivism and even mistaking the origins of the Tea Party. I'd ask you to provide SOME credible authority for your balderdash but in the past this has only resulted in quotes from extremist Right-Wing propaganda sites or references as irrelevant to the subject as charity and compassion are to your ideology.
to Mr. Z:
Atheists surprise me. Considering our species' profound ...more ignorance (we use concepts daily, like "time" and "infinity", that are incomprehensible), how can anyone declare that "god" does not exist? Surely the most that a reasonable person can conclude is that one cannot know, while acknowledging that there is no objective evidence that he does.
After thoroughly studying anthropology, theology, and the psychology of primitive cultures one chooses to believe in an omnipotent being which has left no real evidence of it's existence, that is a personal choice.
However, it is one I in good conscience for the sake of sanity cannot make.
However, if the laws of physics deem we cannot leave the solar system in vessels of our own design, then this planet would seem to be the perfect prison now wouldn't it? If you were designing one, making it escape proof would be first on the list.
Wonder is a beautiful concept. People should ...more try it more often...
I guess once he had a kid, he settled down a bit...
More like retaliate.
God is a human construct, and the Bible though based on a true story in many cases is not evidence.
When God shows up in person, maybe I'll change my mind. Until then, there is ZERO proof of the existence of such a being other than the anecdotal musings of a group of primitive people who had not the knowledge or ability to accept or understand the reality and function ...more of the Universe which surrounds them. Additionally, religion has been a useful weapon to control, intimidate, and execute people who did not agree with it's status quo.
As I stated, and will always state it is a human, abstract construct with no proof to back it up.
Please, how many gods AND goddesses existed before modern monotheism? Why did this single god finally appear after millennia of other religions? If he is the one "true" god, how was this being not known of a hemisphere away for thousands of years? Why would he not reveal himself to all the "children" of his alleged creation? "Heathens" were murdered in his name across the New World, and genocide committed. Christianity is simply a cult that managed to survive into modern times. ...more How about Taoism, Buddhism, Minoan, Greek, Persian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Aztec, Mayan, Shamanism, all the Neolithic religions, et al.
Actually, considering the nature of the Old Testament god, that last part about genocide sounds about right. Those who "beg" for him must have a reason of some kind. If one must base good conduct in this world on some eternal reward, well, that just speaks volumes.
Christianity just managed to survive, unlike it's eons worth of counterparts.
What makes you right, and all these other religions wrong?
Religions are an argument in favor of what one believes on faith that higher power to be, not what it has been proven to be. People still believe to this day the Earth is 6,000 years old. Because of religion.
Should I have the impression that you would have agreed to burn Giordano Bruno at the stake? Or would your moral compass have prohibited such conduct despite the status quo?
You can go ahead and believe in "God" if you want to, but to me it is a waste of time to worship something which, if so advanced, wise, and transcended would most likely and logically not desire servitude or worship anyway.
As far as the "ghosts", we are working on the science and are closer ...more than ever to real proof using technology in the field of parapsychology.
The main request I have of American society today is to keep religion out of civic life. It has no place there. Separation of Church, and State.
Quote:
"[F]or one to posit that one single being brought it into existence, watches over you at all times, resides on another plane called "Heaven", and has an opposing former minion in the bowels of the planet (should that be where hell is) is downright ludicrous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you construe the notion of god that narrowly, ...more then, yes, his existence is highly unlikely (though not impossible.) However, I don't find your description of the creation of the universe that rests on processes that I CAN understand to be more compelling than the concept that it came into existence via a process that I am too profoundly STUPID to understand. We measure reasonableness by our own perception and that's about as useful as the opinion of a mealy worm for an understanding of existence. Might there not be a consciousness so infinitely superior to mine that I will never comprehend it? Wouldn't that be god?
If there is such an enlightened, or higher consciousness I would think that our conduct would incite great sadness and mortification in the very core of it's being. I would posit that such a being would abhor violence, strife, enmity, ...more and negativity to achieve such a level of transcendence.
Do not consider me an atheist, or an agnostic. Spiritual, absolutely. However, I must in good faith and critical analysis consider any theological construct man has created total and complete bull****. You remind me of some words I read as a youth:
"No matter how powerful you may become, remember that there shall always come another who is greater."
The law's treatment of people is arbitrary and unfair. Its economic impact is only going to get worse.
By John C. Goodman
Updated March 21, 2014 7:20 p.m. ET
With Sunday marking the fourth anniversary of Obama Care being signed into law, it's worth revisiting the initial purpose of the president's signature legislation: Universal coverage was the main goal. Four years later, not even the White House pretends that this goal will be realized. ...more Most of those who were uninsured before the law was passed will remain uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Democrats also fixated on another goal: protection for people with pre-existing conditions. One of the first things the new law did was create federal risk pools so that people who had been denied coverage for health reasons could purchase insurance for the same premium a healthy person would pay. Over the next three years, about 107,000 people took advantage of that opportunity.
Think about that. One of the main reasons given for interfering with the health care of 300 million people was to solve a problem that affected a tiny sliver of the population.
Enlarge Image Close
Signing the Affordable Care Act into law, March 23, 2010. Associated Press
More recently, the president has had to explain why between four million and seven million people are losing their health insurance despite his promise that they would not. The new insurance will be better, he tells us. No longer will insurers be able to cancel your coverage after you get sick. What he doesn't say is that this practice was made illegal at the federal level by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and was illegal in most states long before that.
While the president and his party struggle to find more convincing reasons why we need ObamaCare, three huge problems won't go away.
• An impossible mandate. For the past 40 years real, per capita health-care spending has been growing at twice the rate of growth of real, per capita income. That's not only true in this country; it is about the average for the whole developed world.
Clearly, this trend cannot go on forever. So what does ObamaCare do about that? It limits the government's share of the costs while doing nothing to protect individuals or their employers.
ObamaCare's Fourth Anniversary:
Progress, With Caveats
The law restricts the growth of total Medicare spending, the growth of Medicaid hospital spending and (after 2018) the growth of federal tax subsidies in the health-insurance exchanges to no more than the rate of growth of real GDP per capita plus about one half of 1%. This means that as health-care costs become more and more of a burden for the average family, people will get less and less help from government—to pay for insurance the government requires them to buy!
• Unworkable subsidies. A family of four at 138% of poverty level is able to enroll in Medicaid in about half the states and obtain insurance worth about $8,000. Since the coverage is completely free, that's an $8,000 gift. If they earn $1 more, they will be entitled to join a health-insurance exchange and obtain a private plan that costs, say, 50% more in return for an out-of-pocket premium of about $900. That's a gift of more than $11,000.
At the same time, the employees of a hotel who earn pretty much the same wage as in the two previous cases will be forced to have an expensive family plan and they and their employer will get no new government help. The only assistance is the long-standing tax break that exempts employers' premium payments from federal income and payroll taxes. Even so, the ObamaCare mandate amounts to about a $10,000 burden on these businesses and by extension their employees.
These are only a few of the many ways in which ObamaCare's treatment of people is arbitrary and unfair.
A bigger problem is the impact these differential subsidies will have on our economy. As businesses discover that almost everyone who earns less than the average wage gets a better deal from the federal government in the exchange or from Medicaid, and that most people who earn more than the average wage get a better deal if insurance is provided at work, trends already evident will accelerate. Higher-income workers will tend to congregate in firms that provide insurance. Lower-income workers will tend to work for firms that don't. But efficient production requires that firm size and composition be determined by economic factors, not health-insurance subsidies.
• Perverse incentives in the exchanges. Under ObamaCare, insurers are required to charge the same premium to everyone, regardless of health status, and they are required to accept anyone who applies. This means they must overcharge the healthy and undercharge the sick. It also means they have strong incentives to attract the healthy (on whom they make a profit) and avoid the sick (on whom they incur losses).
The result has been a race to the bottom in access and quality of care. To keep premiums as low as possible, the insurers are offering very narrow networks, often leaving out the best doctors and the best hospitals. By keeping deductibles high and fees so low that only a minority of providers will accept them, the insurers are able to lower their premiums, thus attracting still more healthy individuals at the expense of overall care.
So four years into this failed experiment, what are the alternatives? Getting rid of the mandates, letting people choose their own insurance benefits, and giving everyone the same universal tax credit for health insurance would be a good start. More easily accessible health savings accounts for people in high-deductible plans is another good idea.
Every provision in ObamaCare that encourages employers either not to hire people or to reduce their hours should go. Everything in the law that prevents employers from providing individually owned health insurance that travels from job to job should go. And everything that makes HealthCare.gov more complicated than eHealth EHTH +0.47% eHealth Inc. U.S.: Nasdaq $53.50 +0.25 +0.47% March 21, 2014 4:00 pm Volume (Delayed 15m) : 236,971 AFTER HOURS $53.50 0.00 0.00% March 21, 2014 5:15 pm Volume (Delayed 15m): 11,374 P/E Ratio 764.29 Market Cap $1.01 Billion Dividend Yield N/A Rev. per Employee $232,098 More quote details and news » EHTH in Your Value Your Change Short position (a 10-year-old private online exchange) should go.
2- one knows that going in, it's not rationing by any means , c o- pays, prescription costs and out of network providers are all covered
3- no costs associated to the HSA my wife and I have had for the past 6 years
4-Anyone in their right mind can use the HSA to pay for "preventative care"
5- on the contrary, coupled with an inexpensive catastrophic care policy insurance is cheaper to purchase
6- please be specific when you back up this statement
7-nothing ...more to do with the topic
8- absolute hogwash! Anyone I know that has an HSA is pleased with both the tax break and the ease and functionality of having more control over their own health care.
Since you obviously have no clue as to how the combination of an HSA and a catastrophic policy work in the real world, your points enumerated above are nothing more than hot air and regurgitation of liberal talking points--AGAIN!
Quote:
"and it's 'deep seeded' smart guy."
------------------------------------------------------------------
["ahem"] No, it's not.
“I think we are going to crush them [Tea Party candidates] everywhere,” Mr. McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said in an interview ... I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country.” - NY Times, March 8, 2014
Whatever the 2014 results, NONE of the new senators will be Tea Party members. That lunatic ideology is a spent force, thank god.
Phill: Do YOU have an HSA? Have you spoken anyone who has? I have had an HSA for 5 years and fully funded it each year . We have more than enough to cover the high deductible on our catastrophic policy and have used it to pay for out of network providers when my wife suffered a medical emergency while on vacation this past February. FOR SOME PEOPLE AN ...more HSA IS THE WAY TO GO. I know the one size fits all plan from Barak Hussein Obama ,peace be upon Him, makes sense to the left, it doesn't fly in the real world.
Department of Energy
Environmental Protection Agency
Food and Drug Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Trade Commission
National Labor Relations Board
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Central Intelligence Agency
Federal Reserve
Social Security
Welfare
Public Schools
Taxation
For a lesson in Libertarian economics, ...more look no further than Duke Energy dumping millions of gallons of waste into the Cape Fear, and Dan Rivers or Freedom Industries and the Elk River. They're playing you for fools, and you've got your hat, with bells on...
The problem isn't the agency, or the government. The problem is people not executing their appointed tasks. Public, or private sector it matters not. The process is just a ripe for corruption if permitted. Humans still have the potential to be, and in far too many cases are incompetent.
These guys have got to go.
It's the big picture, not the small steps you should be worried about. Their motives have been made more than abundantly clear by their own volition.
Oh, I forgot. It's the who is in the White House that's the problem. It's started to feel like Republibrats like to be told what to do when the People don't get what they support.
And for the record, I read about in the International Business Times. Maybe you should read their piece...
Bill Weise, alleged con artist, real estate scammer, and nightmare exaggerist. You're going to need something better than that snake oil.
All you have is faith something which has never shown itself exists. That's not proof, it's hypothesis.
Possibly just a coincidence, or was that sour wine drugged?
You must have missed out on the "swoon hypothesis"...
I was referring to insane behavior like purposelessly shutting down the federal government, advocating default on the national debt, or (my favorite) "filibustering" for 21 hours without there being a vote pending to filibuster.
Mad or sane, they're over, regardless of the outcome in 2014. All America breathes a sigh of relief.
I resemble that remark;)
Q
What are the risks from allowing an ever-increasing concentration of wealth and incomes? Is there a point when inequality becomes intolerable? Does history offer any lessons in this regard?
A.
U.S. inequality is now close to the levels of income concentration that prevailed in Europe around 1900-10. History suggests that this kind of inequality level is not only useless for growth, it can also lead to a capture of the political process by a tiny high-income ...more and high-wealth elite. This directly threatens our democratic institutions and values.
The single, biggest, and hardest first step would be to once again ban corporations from civic life.
Truth be told, Piketty has probably published everything I would tell you we need, and how to avoid it.
More to follow later on, day shift is over and off to night shift.
Obama Seeking to Abolish Tomahawk, Hellfire Missile Programs
by Debra Heine 24 Mar 2014, 3:17 PM PDT
Obama is doing that thing again that he loves to do, "which is surrender whatever advantages the country has – whichever advantages, wherever we dominate...."
The president is seeking to cut two highly successful missile programs, which defense experts say have ...more helped the U.S. Navy maintain military superiority for the past several decades. Obama's proposal they say would leave us with no functioning Tomahawk missiles past 2018.
Via the Washington Free Beacon:
The Tomahawk missile program—known as “the world’s most advanced cruise missile”—is set to be cut by $128 million under Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal and completely eliminated by fiscal year 2016, according to budget documents released by the Navy.
In addition to the monetary cuts to the program, the number of actual Tomahawk missiles acquired by the United States would drop significantly—from 196 last year to just 100 in 2015. The number will then drop to zero in 2016.
Lord help us.
The Department of the Navy says they don't want any more; that we have plenty in our inventory to last for ten years. Did you know that R&D is getting underway ...more to develop their replacement? Do you care? Or is your purpose in life simply to twist and manipulate the truth in a lame attempt to disparage the Department of Defense and the White House?
So which is it? Are you blatantly trying to deceive, or simply ignorant?
I guess the writing is on the wall now isn't it
"The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) blasted statistician Nate Silver for giving Republicans a 66% chance to take back the Senate"
Phil and the rest of you have given Silver's election projections such credibility so this is most inconvenient
Did you really introduce a new topic just to slide in some irrelevancies about the battle of the pundits?
I also note that after spending well in excess of TEN BILLION dollars, not a single Tomahawk or Hellfire ...more missile has ever been fired in defense of the United States of America. And I notice you chose not to answer whether you are trying to deceive or simply ignorant.
No comparable replacement for the A-10.
Nothing to replace the men and women in uniform after reduced to pre WWII levels
Reducing our nuclear armament stockpile
Reducing funding to Israeli missile defense
Scrapping the European missile defense plan
Sowing suspicion amongst allies while aiding, in MANY different ways, our greatest adversaries.
These actions amount to what is basically surrender before the war even starts ...more and it does not take a strategic genius to understand that we are growing increasingly vulnerable the longer we leave Mr. Obama on his throne and the democrat party in the majority.
If the pure fire of freedom is snuffed out here, it may very well be gone from this world for a long, long time. It is perhaps every American's greatest responsibility to ensure we protect it to our dying breaths.
Nothing described above does this and we all need to recognize what that says about those in power now while we still have a chance to take action.
We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting ...more to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:
◾Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
◾Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
◾Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
◾Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
◾Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
◾Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.
In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court’s attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the (Dartmouth College v Woodward) ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people’s message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state’s powers over “artificial bodies.”
But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation’s resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.
The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment–a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public’s resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.
Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid “borers” to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters.
Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.
One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s recommended book Unequal Protection.
From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.
A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, “The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power….”
Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence. At Reclaim Democracy!, we believe citizens can reassert the convictions of our nation’s founders who struggled successfully to free us from corporate rule in the past. These changes must occur at the most fundamental level — the U.S. Constitution.
~ Courtesy of Reclaim Democracy
OPINIONS may vary but it is an incontestable FACT that there will be NO new Tea Partiers in the senate, making us all winners in the next election.
7:47 AM By Nate Silver
There was a lot of discussion Monday about the rebuttal by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) to FiveThirtyEight’s latest Senate forecast. That forecast identified the Republicans as more likely than not to take over the Senate.
Risen: Obama administration is this generation’s ‘greatest enemy of press freedom’
by Andrew Beaujon
Published Mar. 24, 2014 3:35 pm
Updated Mar. 25, 2014 11:05 am
“It won’t take me long to alienate everyone in the room,” Jeffrey Toobin told an audience in New York Friday. “For better or worse, it has been clear there is no journalistic privilege under the First Amendment.”
The ...more New Yorker staff writer and CNN commentator was appearing on a panel as part of a George Polk Awards conference called Sources and Secrets at the Times Center. A lot has already been written about the conference (links below), so I’m going to pull out a theme that appears again and again in my notes: How much protection do reporters really have with regard to sources, and how much, if any, protection would a federal shield law give them?
New York Times reporter James Risen, who is fighting an order that he testify in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer accused of leaking information to him, opened the conference earlier by saying the Obama administration is “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” The administration wants to “narrow the field of national security reporting,” Risen said, to “create a path for accepted reporting.” Anyone journalist who exceeds those parameters, Risen said, “will be punished.”
The administration’s aggressive prosecutions have created “a de facto Official Secrets Act,” Risen said, and the media has been “too timid” in responding.
Mr Z, how would you enact your ideas without violating the constitution? Thanks for your time.
It's funny actually how so many people read the Constitution as if it were written today. The vernacular of the time, and the etymology of language since that has changed markedly.
Got anything better than idiotic Tea Party talking points?
One wonders just how much more despicable Tea Partiers would act were it not for the fact that most of its members, raised in Christian households, ...more occasionally are deterred by the fear that their meanness will damn them.
The AP-GfK poll shows 59 percent of Americans now disapprove of Obama -- a point higher than the previous high set in December.
Kathleen Sebelius: Obamacare Extension 'Is Not An Extension'
Embattled Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on Wednesday that the Obama administration's decision to extend the Obamacare open enrollment period is not, in fact, an extension.
Thans for clearing that up, What a joke!
The 67 Richest Are as Wealthy as the World's Poorest 3.5 Billion
By: Kasia Moreno
Forbes
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Oxfam International, a poverty fighting organization, made news at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year with its report that the world’s 85 richest people own assets with the same value as those owned by the poorer half of the world’s population, or 3.5 billion people (including ...more children). Both groups have $US 1.7 trillion. That’s $20 billion on average if you are in the first group, and $486 if you are in the second group.
Oxfam’s calculations of the richest individuals are based on the 2013 Forbes Billionaires list. I decided to take a closer look at this group of 85 in search of trends. That’s when I realized that they are by now a much wealthier group. The rich got richer. And it was quite fast and dramatic. For example, while last year it took $23 billion to be in the top 20 of the world’s billionaires, this year it took $31 billion, according to Luisa Kroll, Forbes wealth editor, writing on Forbes.com.
As a result, by the time Forbes published its 2014 Billionaires List in early March, it took only 67 of the richest peoples’ wealth to match the poorer half of the world. (For the purpose of this blog, I will put aside the conversation about the importance of income inequality versus impoverishment. This has recently been skewing strongly toward recognition of the importance of income distribution and its inequality, most recently with the publication of Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty.)
Each of the 67 is on average worth the same as 52 million people from the bottom of the world’s wealth pyramid. Bill Gates, the world’s richest man, with a net worth of $76 billion, is worth the same as 156 million people from the bottom.
Who are the 67? The biggest group—28 billionaires, or 42% of them—is from the United States. No other country comes close. Germany and Russia have the second-highest number, with six each. The rest are sprinkled among 13 countries in Western Europe, APAC and the Americas.
That the biggest group of the super rich comes from the U.S. should not be a surprise, as the country holds almost a third of the world’s wealth (30%), significantly more than any other country, according to the Global Wealth Databook, from Credit Suisse Research Institute. However, Europe, with a slightly bigger chunk of the world’s wealth (32%), produced substantially fewer of the richest. That is due to less dynamic economies, which do not equal the U.S. in how they foster innovation, on which many of the newest U.S. fortunes are based.
When comparing the ratio of the richest to the percentage of the world’s wealth held by each country, it is Russia that comes out the most lopsided, with its holdings skewed to the super rich. As a country, Russia holds only half a percent of the world’s wealth, and yet it has 9% of the 67 richest.
The 67 fortunes come from three main industries: technology (12), retail (12) and natural resources-based sectors such as oil and gas, mining and steel. The geographical split by industry illustrates the state and progression of the various economies. Almost all technology fortunes are recent and from the U.S. Retail is dominated by second- or third-generation Western Europeans. The majority of the rich whose money comes from natural resources are from emerging markets, with most of them from Russia.
The majority of the 67—40, or 60%, to be precise—are self-made. This rarified group of people thus shows that there is wealth mobility over time in the highest echelons, among both individuals and countries. Had there been less global mobility, the majority of the richest would necessarily have inherited wealth and come from the countries with the oldest fortunes, which are in Western Europe. Already back in the late 1980s, when Forbes first started to compile its Billionaires list, Western Europe stood apart from the rest of the world, with the majority of its fortunes inherited. That did not provide a long-term edge. Today, just 13 of the 67 come from Western Europe.
Of course, part of the reason behind the high number of self-made fortunes of the 67 lies in economic upheavals, such as the fall of communism or the opening of countries like India, which has allowed for the creation of huge new fortunes over the last couple of decades. And while they are self-made in the sense that they have not been inherited from family members, at least some of them are based on privatizations of formerly state-owned assets, making them the inheritors of their peoples’ wealth.
There will be more mobility among the richest individuals if more of the world’s richest give away their money to philanthropy, expecting future generations to start anew. Out of the 67, eight have signed a giving pledge, promising to leave the majority of their wealth to philanthropy. All but one, Indian billionaire Azim Premji, are from the U.S. That amount pledged to charity comes to at least $150 billion, assuming half of their fortunes are given away. That means that these eight people have pledged to give to philanthropy what some 309 million people (average members of the group of 3.5 billion poorest) today have. Presumably, this philanthropy, which has been increasingly systemic—meaning that it aims to create long-term change instead of alleviating immediate needs—will in the long run help more than 300 million people.
Turning fortunes over to philanthropy will also drastically change the makeup of the richest, making room for more of the self-made. It has to be noted, however, that not every region of the world is on the same wavelength in this respect, with family legacy in business especially important in Europe.
Late breaking: Forbes has just announced it is updating its Billionaires rankings in real time now. The latest counts show that over the last month the number of billionaires whose net worth equals that of the 3.5 billion poorest people has fallen to 66.
They might be young,
but they're the ones that make the big people big
So listen as they whisper:
"What about me?"
~ "What About Me", Moving Pictures (1982)
The basics I covered (which you obviously neglected to glean from the thread) is historical, pre-Civil War fact, and a progressive tax system does not violate the Constitution and existed for decades in this country. You truly are ignorant on a level which is staggering in the information age, and apparently your brain is pickled in Koch Tea.
People ...more like you are the problem. Heck, you probably even believe it was Paul Revere who warned the colonies and that Columbus sailed West because the world was flat. Neither of which are true, by the way. May Providence have mercy on your soul.
BF is right Z... It does come off as envy
If we went to a consumption tax you would be happy every time they built a house or bought a boat instead of... well you know.
The problem is the way you are conditioned to think. Regardless of personality these men are poisoning our democracy with their wealth and power. Anybody can act nice to your face, and stab you in the back once it's turned in case you missed that lesson in this life. This isn't anti-capitalist. It's pro founders, pro revolution and about what this country was created to become. And corporate money influencing politics is about as UN-AMERICAN as it gets. They are WRONG, and so ...more are you.
I can't make you think outside the little box your mind seems to live in.
Not a caretaker but a horticulturist, gardens , roses, pots around the pool sort of thing, an entrepreneur , an employer. One who holds no ill will towards someone's success, an open mind willing to embrace those with different opinions and those occupying different rungs on the economic ladder. See Mr Z , that's where you and I differ, acceptance vs jealousy, the ability to be inspired ...more by success, not driven to envy. May the rich get richer!
What you fail miserably to realize and glean from American History is that progressive taxation is an American original. People had a deep seated fear (and rightfully so) that this country was in danger of becoming ...more feudal Europe where vast fortunes extinguished the "commoner" and their ability to be heard. The Jeffersonian view of an egalitarian society was adamant that public policy prevent the massive accumulation of vast fortune and power, but the hereditary version of it as well. They did not want their New World to become the Old World they fought so hard to break away from.
You should really read Irving Fisher. As I've said before, and will continue to say; "We" need a 21st century Teddy Roosevelt.
Mr Z It seems that your answer to the "problem " of income inequality is taxation. That's the only concrete idea that you have put forth. And where would this money go? To those who have less than the mega wealthy? Classic income re distribution , if that's ...more what you meant to say.
The numbers don't lie. We had more opportunity, more jobs, better stability, proper infrastructure, and more prosperity under a progressive income tax alongside a minimum 25% capital gains tax.
We are getting our a** kicked by the rest of the world when it comes to green energy, high speed rail, and income equality. Our Gini coefficient is pathetic, and our leaders for the most part are inept, with the occasional bright ray of sunshine. ...more You cannot drive GDP when a full 2/3 of your country grosses 50k, or less per annum. In case you missed it, the wealth in this country has been redistributed in the last thirty years. It's been transferred to the top 10% of the population, and it is a FACT that 95% of the income gains since the "Great Recession" have gone to 1% of the population. The numbers are there, should you choose to accept it...
Maybe it's high time we proved it and show the world just how innovative, and creative "We" are.
As to wealth transfer and income inequality, your stats may be correct, but a business earning money is ...more a lot different that GOVERNMENT confiscating funds from that business to use for questionable reasons such as buying votes by giving said funds away or flushing them down the sewer of our bloated, corrupt federal behemoth of a government.
The "free market" never accomplished providing for the need for the TVA. The "free market" never saw or accomplished the building of the Eisenhower Interstate system. Or Niagara, or Hoover, or any other major public works projects which are so large they require the funding made possible by millions of people.
As far as "entitlements" Social Security doesn't qualify, nor does unemployment since "We" pay for that. If you pay your dues, work hard, support the blanket of freedom this country provides, and s*** happens to you, there should be some type of safety net should all else fail.
The view you support is a simplistic and foolish endeavor. If you were smart you'd be advocating amending, not eliminating government.
Agreed. And, let's visit the history books a bit. Limited charter was a creation of the founders of this country. The men who created this Republic maintained a VERY tight leash on corporations and business in general. They were not permitted to influence lawmaking, PERIOD. There were no lobbyists, or "borers" as they were called just after the Civil War. There was ZERO acceptance of corporate involvement in civic life. The Libertarian view is a smokescreen, and undermines ...more all this country was founded to become as they are the single biggest utilizers of lobbying and spending billions to influence lawmaking.
Learn some history.
I for one have no voting for anyone no matter what there race or gender.
As long as it was Condi Rice or Ben Carson.
My "ideology" comes from history, egalitarian values, teamwork, and hard work, not selfishness, bigotry, and baseless theology. Coincidentally, many of the things which were highly prized in the early years of the United States...
Bill Maher used his Friday night HBO show Real Time to point out a blatant hypocrisy when it comes to racism in the United States. But in order to make his point, Maher had to mislead his panel of guests.
Maher read a recent quote from Paul Ryan about inner city men not valuing work that got Ryan accused of being racist, and two out of three of Maher's panelists ...more agreed with the criticism. Maher then read another quote he said was by Ryan, which stated that most young black men are just sitting around dreaming of becoming a "baller" or "rapper." Again, a majority of panelists cringed at its racist overtones. But then Maher revealed that in fact first lady Michelle Obama said the last quote -- and an uncomfortable hush fell across the entire studio.
I think Kamau Bell really hit the nail on the head regarding context, vernacular, and audience. And his statement right at the end had me LMAO mainly because of how true it is. The basis of having a working and thriving populace is education, ...more which REALLY sucks in too many places these days and not just urban areas and inner cities. The point the First Lady was driving home at the commencement speech is that it's good to have dreams, but you ALWAYS need to have a "Plan B" and education/vocational training is not only one of the most direct and best ways to combat poverty, but also you need it to have a "Plan B". You need jobs to create income. You need disposable income to drive GDP. If there are no jobs, people turn to public assistance. The lazy stereotype really needs to cease. When people don't even earn enough from two jobs to cover their basic necessities (regardless of where they live) that's one h*** of a hole to dig out of. It can take the word "sacrifice" to a whole new level.
In this context, and though he may have a point, Ryan really did not present very well. His level of diplomacy and common decency was sorely lacking. The issues he spoke of exist in rural areas, as well as large cities. His mistake was the singling out of the inner city culture and population, especially being an Ayn Rand disciple. That actually causes his statement to look even worse than it ordinarily would, and it's not his "first offense".
The Obama administration has been helping to facilitate a series of events nationwide at Mexican Consulate offices to enroll people in Obamacare – and a key activist says the efforts are “our responsibility” regardless of citizenship.
The press deleted this why? So I post it again!
And ask again whats up with this!
Perhaps you were deleted under the new Dry Goods & News policy of censoring time-wasters?
Your silly and misleading post, drawn from the Right-Wing propaganda site, breitbart.com, suggests that the federal government is enrolling Mexicans, or, at least, undocumented aliens, in Affordable Care. That implication is, of course, completely false.
Your deceptive use of the word "responsibility", mimicking breitbart's, actually refers to organizers' efforts to EDUCATE ...more Hispanics about Affordable Care, not to enroll them regardless of qualification.
Mexican consulates in the United States are an information resource for Hispanic Americans and legal residents of Mexican descent. Using them as one of the means of insuring that ALL residents, ethnicity notwithstanding, access the health care benefits to which they are entitled is a sensible and laudable effort.
Your reply is stereotypical Right-Wing disingenuity. Every reader is capable of accessing the breitbart. com article entitled,
"Obamacare Navigators Helping People Enroll At Mexican Consulates",
and subtitled,
"The Obama administration has been helping to facilitate a series of events nationwide at Mexican Consulate offices to enroll people in Obamacare – and a key activist says the efforts are 'our responsibility' regardless of citizenship", ...more
and decide what impression it is that the author wished to convey.
Moreover, in keeping with your habit of withholding accreditation when your sources are untrustworthy, you neglect to mention that the biased proponent of the unsubstantiated "concerns" in your ultimate quote is Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the most extreme anti-immigrant senator in Congress.
The article is duplicitous, childish fluff, unworthy of the consideration of any principled news medium. Hence its appearance on breitbart, and hence its popularity with the Right-Wing.
Talk about a traveling road show of failure.
― Albert Einstein
A difficult lesson society has not learned.
So maybe your right, I would be more polite to you than him on the street
Rather than a twisted school consoler who's spends his free time trying to Organize on the net.
NX ~ THE RELENTLESS HARD HITTING ANTI-GOP BUSHCO AWARENESS TRUTH FORUM who belives "opposition to GWB and his neocon chickenhawk administration that has done all it could to cripple democracy and restrict the rights of our citezens while using their power to push an agenda of religious ...more and corporate domination.I truly feel that they are fascist in their approach and execution of their policies". wow 1297
As I have mentioned before, there seems to be no bottom to your unscrupulous behavior. Your snide insinuation that Mr. Z is a malingering swindler exceeds even your previous nadir of deplorable vileness. In the course of your appearance on this forum, you have transmogrified from a reasonable commentator to a malicious libeler. It's like watching the progress of a disfiguring disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As ...more regards our earlier discussion regarding informational fairs at Mexican consulates, I once again invite you (and all readers) to review the subtitle of the article wherein the author implies that "activists" are enrolling unqualified Mexicans in Affordable Care.
Having suckered readers with that fraudulent lead, the mendacious author then takes them along a well-trodden path of boring, Right-Wing cant down which they would never have been lured had the headline been honest. One wonders if the entire subterfuge was put forward in order to dupe patsies into reading Senator Sessions' completely unsupported, anti-immigrant bombast.
With that thought in mind, here's the "who, what, when, where, how, and why" for the article which you requested. Senator Jeff Sessions [who], an anti-immigration zealot [what], in this article [when], in a quote from his spokesman [where], demonstrates his bias by proclaiming exaggerated "concerns" [how], motivated by prejudice [why.] Now it's your turn, find SOME objective citations that show any substance to his biased claims.
This is but another deplorable performance that epitomizes the absence of principle in extreme Right-Wingers, be they legislators, journalists, or posters on a forum.
A liberal-socialist and revisionist to the end. British "sensibilities" are why our colonial ancestors left the United Kingdom in the first place. Those misguided ideas and values emphatically do NOT need to be imported to our nation in the 21st Century. Goodbye, Piers, and do not hurry back. Try Canada, next time.
My apologies. I didn't realize that your calling Mr. Z a malingering swindler was jocular badinage. For your clarification, however, my rebuke was by no means made in his defense (since he needs none) but is an expression of my own disgust at your ever-degenerating behavior. I suspect that Mr. Z himself would find it infra dig to comment.
Regarding the “Mexican consulate” article, you claim that Sen. Sessions' assertions are CLEAR and ACCURATE but ...more decline to post any authoritative citations supporting your claim. Fish or cut bait.
If my opinions bore you, employ some of that “personal responsibility” that you Right-Wingers are always going on about and IGNORE me - - or seethe in your masochism.
You have mistaken revulsion at your habitual dishonesty and meanness for hate. I assure you, if you merely adopt normal mores, this misconception will vanish.
to They call me:
To judge by your latest embarrassingly fatuous comment, you appear to share Captn. America's fondness for libel and masochism.
The disasterious effects of obama care, Benghazi, The snooping on journalists, and the lack of leadership shown on the invasion of Ukraine all reflect the full flowering of the policies of this armature.
obama owns the world he made, or more accurately, the world he tried to remake.
His chickens are coming home to roost, and what a mess they are making.
when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted,
when all the air is unsafe to breathe,
only then will you discover you cannot eat money.”
~ Cree Prophecy
Let’s say that you are a healthy, hardworking 54-year-old single adult living in Southampton earning $45,960 per year, the income level at which federal obamacare subsidies from your fellow taxpayers are no longer available to help you pay your monthly health insurance premiums. As a Southampton resident, you are permitted to choose from among 13 separate ...more Obamacare compliant insurance plans. Four of these are so-called “Bronze” plans, low-level policies whose average premium will cost you $453 per month, or $5,436 per year. In exchange for those premium payments, a Bronze plan will cover 60% of your medical expenses—that is, after you meet the $5,000 out-of-pocket annual deductible. For this priceless peace of mind, you can thank Obamacare, Phil, High Hat,Mets fan,Z, and the rest of the progressives for this gift to America.
now lets contrast your case with that of Tim, another 54-year-old single individual in Southampton, who happens to be an obese alcoholic and longtime drug abuser with little ambition and no history of ever having held a full-time job for very long.
Tim currently earns $15,860 per year, which is just above the income level that would have made him eligible for Medicaid. Because Tim doesn’t qualify for Medicaid, Obamacare stipulates that he must now purchase his own health insurance thereby proving that, contrary to the shrill rhetoric of conservative naysayers, no one gets an undeserved free ride under Obamacare.
Like you, Tim can choose from among 13 separate plans that are available to Southamton residents. But unlike you, he is eligible to receive federal government subsidies money that other, wealthier Americans, such as you, magnanimously “contribute” toward the healthcare expenses of financially “disadvantaged” individuals. If he selects one of the four Bronze plans (whose average monthly premium is $453), Tim qualifies for $452 in average monthly subsidies—meaning that, regardless of which Bronze plan he chooses, he will pay a monthly premium of exactly $1. You read that correctly. The very same healthcare plan that would cost you $453 per month, is available to Tim for $1 per month i.e., the cost of three oatmeal-raisin cookies at your local Subway sandwich shop. Over the course of a year, you will pay a total of $5,436 in policy premiums, while Tim, who sadly failed to qualify for free healthcare through Medicaid, will pay his own fair share of $12. This is all in the interest of social justice, you understand. And please, don’t even think about whispering that Obamacare might be some sort of “wealth redistribution” scheme, lest you expose yourself as a petulant reactionary and High Hat will say you don't give a damn about sick people.
Oh, imagine what a wonderful world it would be if we could somehow transfer this same brand of Obamacare-style fairness to realms other than health insurance. In such a Mr.Z utopia, for example, the $25,000 new automobile that you purchase would cost a deserving soul like Tim just $55. Your $100 nightly fee at a motel would be 45 cents for Tim. And the $25 hardcover book you purchase at Barnes & Noble would set Tim back about a nickel. What’s that, you say? These items aren’t life-and-death necessities, like medical care, and thus don’t serve as useful analogies?
Good point! Let’s stick with real necessities, such as food and housing: The same load of groceries that costs you $250 would cost Tim 55 cents. Your $1,200-per-month rent or mortgage payment would be available to Tim for about $2.65 a month. And the $250,000 home you seek to buy, well it could be Tim’s for about $552. Yes, we’re talking about a veritable paradise of fairness!
If you take home 350 a week after taxes, you realize that you clear $16,800 per year? If we built a better world instead of destroying it these problems wouldn't exist. Life isn't fair. Get used to it, right?
i read that 3 times and passed it on to everyone on my email list. mr. z even liked it a little i think
tee he
Invisible world, invisible saviors: The secret to overcoming the threat of extinction
If we want to avoid the worst ecological catastrophes, we're going to have to begin thinking small. Very small.
Nicholas P. Money
"The most dangerous citizen, is an uninformed citizen."
Maybe you should strike a better balance between work, and the work it requires to be well informed before you take the time to post here. Admittedly I have the good fortune of being able to read rather quickly. I'm sure you do paperwork on Sundays, because I can't imagine you landscaping on a Sunday with the laws on the books...
Since this thread is getting pretty long, maybe everyone should migrate over to post ON-TOPIC comments under this new article about funding for mental health services on the South Fork?
http://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/East-End/56220/State-Legislators-Hope-To-Secure-Money-For-Mental-Health-Services-On-South-Fork
Hah!
If you do read this thread, but don't post in it, please reply to this one. I think it would be interesting to know how many lurkers we have...
AP by STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Posted: 03/31/2014 12:50 am EDT Updated: 03/31/2014 12:59 am EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Even if Democrats recruit great candidates, raise gobs of money and run smart campaigns, they face an uphill fight to retake control of the House in this year's congressional elections, regardless of the political climate in November.
The reason? Republican strategists spent years developing a plan to take ...more advantage of the 2010 census, first by winning state legislatures and then redrawing House districts to tilt the playing field in their favor. Their success was unprecedented.
In states like Ohio, Michigan and North Carolina, Republicans were able to shape congressional maps to pack as many Democratic voters as possible into the fewest House districts. The practice is called gerrymandering, and it left fertile ground elsewhere in each state to spread Republican voters among more districts, increasing the GOP's chances of winning more seats.
Geography helped in some states. Democratic voters are more likely to live in densely populated urban areas, making it easier to pack them into fewer districts.
The first payoff came in 2012, when Republicans kept control of the House despite a Democratic wave that swept President Barack Obama to a second term. The next payoff is likely to come this fall when candidates once again compete in House districts drawn by Republican legislators in key states.
Gerrymandering has a long history in the United States, pursued enthusiastically by both Democrats and Republicans. But the GOP's success at it this decade has been historic: In 2012, Republicans maintained a 33-seat majority in the House, even though GOP candidates as a group got 1.4 million fewer votes than their Democratic opponents.
It was only the second time since World War II that the party receiving the most votes failed to win a majority of House seats, according to statistics compiled by the House Clerk. Democrats gained eight seats but were still a minority.
"The fact that Republicans controlled redistricting (after 2010) meant that they were able to build up a wall, stopping a lot of the tide from running out," said Justin Levitt, a law professor and redistricting expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "They were able to shore up a lot of the districts that had been won by, in many cases, tea party freshmen or other Republican freshmen."
The Republicans' advantage will fade as the decade wears on and the population changes. In the meantime, lopsided House districts are having a direct impact on the ability of Congress to tackle tough issues. House districts are drawn so that Democrats and Republicans often represent very different groups of people with different views on divisive issues. That can make it hard to find common ground.
Democrats control the White House and the Senate, though control of the Senate will be up for grabs in November. Republicans control the House, giving them powerful leverage to block Obama's second-term agenda.
How did Republicans gain their historic advantage? It all started with the party's sweeping victories in 2010 and a plan called REDMAP.
The 2010 election was a disaster for Democrats. Voters were angry over bank bailouts, the poor economy, ballooning budget deficits and Obama's new health law, which had just passed Congress without a single Republican vote. All these issues fueled the rise of conservative tea party groups that backed Republican candidates up and down the ballot.
Obama called the election "a shellacking."
Republicans picked up 63 seats to win control of the House. They also gained seats in the Senate, though Democrats kept their majority.
Perhaps more important, Republicans won control of state legislatures in key states, giving the party the edge that is still paying dividends.
Every 10 years following the census, states redraw the boundaries of House districts to account for population changes. Some states gain seats and others lose them, so the overall total remains 435. In most states, the legislature and the governor draw up the new districts, which is why political parties pay special attention to elections at the start of each decade.
"I think Democrats made a terrible mistake. They did not put nearly enough attention or resources into legislative races at the state level," said Matt Bennett, a former aide to President Bill Clinton. "A bunch of these legislatures slipped by very narrow margins, and some of them flipped for the first time since Reconstruction in the South."
For Republicans, it was a combination of luck and planning. The political winds were in their favor, but they also had been plotting for years to take full advantage of redistricting.
The project was called REDMAP, which stood for Redistricting Majority Project. It called for targeting statehouse races in states that were expected to gain or lose congressional seats following the census. GOP strategists reasoned that redistricting could have a greater impact in these states because there would have to be more changes to district boundaries, said Chris Jankowski, former president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, which heads up the party's national effort to elect candidates to state offices.
Republicans spent more than $30 million through REDMAP to help elect legislative majorities in states like Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Jankowski said.
In Ohio, REDMAP spent nearly $1 million on six Ohio House races. Republican candidates won five, helping them take control of the Ohio House.
In Pennsylvania, REDMAP spent nearly $1 million on three state House races, winning all three and helping Republicans win a majority in the Pennsylvania House.
"We're not talking about 2-month-long broadcast buys on network TV that never stop, like you see in a U.S. Senate battle," Jankowski said. "We're talking about cable, radio, mail, ground game — very basic stuff."
Similar scenarios played out in Michigan and Wisconsin. In North Carolina, Republicans won control of the entire state legislature for the first time since the 1800s.
"We targeted the resources to have maximum impact on congressional redistricting," Jankowski said.
The strategy worked. Before the 2010 election, the GOP had majorities in 36 state legislative bodies. Afterward, the party controlled 56, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In almost half the states, Republicans won control of the entire redistricting process. They gained control of at least one legislative chamber in other states, limiting Democrats' ability to draw districts favoring their candidates.
Democrats' statehouse losses in 2010 were "a catastrophe that is going to have a much bigger impact on Obama's second term than the congressional elections that year did, because it's much more durable," Bennett said.
In all, Republicans controlled the process of drawing the boundaries for 210 House districts, compared to just 44 districts for Democrats, according to statistics compiled by Levitt. The rest were drawn by divided government, the courts, or in a handful of mostly western states, independent commissions.
Six states illustrate the Republicans' advantage in House elections: Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin and Florida. Obama won all six in both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. But the House delegation for each state is overwhelmingly Republican.
It might seem like voters split their ballots — voting for a Democrat for president and a Republican for Congress. But that's not what happened.
To help analyze voting patterns in congressional districts, The Associated Press divided the votes from the 2012 presidential election into all 435 House districts.
Since Obama got the most votes, you might think he won the most congressional districts. But he didn't.
Nationally, Obama received nearly 5 million more votes than Republican Mitt Romney. But in some states, large numbers of Obama's votes were packed into heavily Democratic congressional districts. As a result, Romney won 17 more House districts than Obama.
Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin and Florida accounted for the entire disparity. Obama won the statewide vote, but Romney won the most congressional districts in each state.
Republicans engineered these disparities by packing large numbers of Democrats into relatively few districts. This resulted in lopsided Democratic districts. For example, Obama won more than 80 percent of the vote in 26 House districts spread across 10 states.
Republican voters were spread more evenly. As a result, Romney won more than 80 percent of the vote in just a single House district, in the Texas panhandle.
Lopsided districts help explain why Congress is so polarized. The divide is reflected in demographic differences, which can shape the debate on a variety of issues.
— Immigration. The average Democratic district has about twice as many Hispanic residents as the typical Republican district. This helps explain why House Republicans have less incentive to pass an immigration bill that would provide a path to citizenship for millions of people living in the U.S. illegally.
— Minimum wage. Democrats represent the vast majority of districts with large pockets of low-income workers and families living in poverty. That helps explain why Democrats are more eager than Republicans to raise the minimum wage. Interestingly, Democrats also represent most of the wealthiest districts, along the East and West Coasts.
— Health care. Democrats represent the vast majority of districts with high concentrations of people who had no health insurance before Obama's new health law, one of many reasons Democrats and Republicans view the law so differently.
Independent experts give Democrats little chance to retake the House this year. Even beyond Republicans' redistricting advantage, the party of the president usually loses seats in Congress during midterm elections.
Still, Rep. Steve Israel of New York, who is in charge of the House Democrats' campaign operation, rejects arguments that Democrats can't do it, regardless of the map.
"There's no question that midterm elections are more challenging for the party whose president is in power," Israel said.
Jankowski, on the other hand, expects Republican candidates to continue enjoying the fruits of redistricting. But he notes that people move and populations change. As the decade wears on, the political benefits diminish, and another redistricting battle will loom.
"It has a shelf life to it and it's usually not the full 10 years," Jankowski said. "That's the reason we have a census every 10 years."
Michael Lewis: “The stock market is rigged”
The financial journalist explores legalized front running in his newest book, "Flash Boys"
Summarized: Banks are “able to identify your desire to buy shares in Microsoft and buy them in front of you and sell them back to you at a higher price,” Lewis explained. “It all happens in infinitesimally small periods of time. There’s speed advantage that the faster traders have ...more is milliseconds, some of it is fractions of milliseconds. But it’s enough for them to identify what you’re gonna do and do it before you do it at your expense.”
“It’s legalized front running,” Lewis said. “It’s crazy that it’s legal for some people to get advance news on prices and what investors are doing. It’s just nuts. Shouldn’t happen.”
I've never claimed a party affiliation, and I probably never will.
"If a woman has a right to an abortion, why shouldn't a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman?"
Rep. Lawrence Lockman, (R-Maine)
YES, he actually said this.
Quote:
"Liberals strive for equality, not by allowing folks to raise themselves up, but by government dragging the successful down. There it is Phil, right out in the open for all to see, disprove it if you can."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see that you are a “Plan 9 from Outer Space” debater, as was the character in the final scene of that film who declared that everything that had gone ...more before was real and then demanded, “Can you prove that it didn't happen?”
Everyone-not-from-Outer-Space-or-the-Extreme-Right-Wing agrees that the proponent of a naked assertion must present his own proof FIRST before he demands that others DISprove him.
to Undocumented Democrat:
Compassionate people (not to mention those capable of the barest analysis) look at "Tim", the hypothetical 54-year-old, poorly-paid (but working), obese, alcoholic drug-abuser and realize that his condition is likely the result of mental illness for which he can now receive treatment thanks to Affordable Care. To the conscientious that is enough of a justification for his enrollment, and even the Extreme Right-Wing SHOULD approve since medical treatment might enable Tim to achieve financial self-sufficiency and, at least, will make it less likely that he will become a $60,000-a-year ward of the state prison system. However, this argument doesn't register with Extreme Right-Wingers whose alternative healthplan for Tim (throwing him in the ocean tied to a rock) would cost them least.
Shocking new deal pushed through by elites is a ticking time bomb for taxpayers and depositors.
by Ellen Brown (attorney, chairman of the Public Banking Institute)
For historical reference (don't forget to brush up on your Colonial vernacular):
"...historical facts which belong to the present, as well as future times. I doubt whether a single fact, known to the world, will carry as clear conviction ...more to it, of the correctness of our knowledge of the treasonable views of the federal party of that day, as that disclosed by this, the most nefarious and daring attempt to dissever the Union, of which the Hartford convention was a subsequent chapter; and both of these having failed, consolidation becomes the fourth chapter of the next book of their history. But this opens with a vast accession of strength from their younger recruits, who, having nothing in them of the feelings or principles of ’76, now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry.def This will be to them a next best blessing to the monarchy of their first aim, and perhaps the surest stepping-stone to it"
~ Thomas Jefferson to William B. Giles 12/26/1825
You're not as perceptive as you think. And the "rules" are about common sense and logic. You'd be kicked off the forums where I work as a moderator, and the other where I volunteer. And, your profile title would be replaced with "I can't follow the rules" highlighted in red. Yes, despite your tantrum there are rules of decorum...
"Above all, the Jeffersonians were devoted to the principles of Republicanism, especially civic duty and opposition to privilege, aristocracy, and corruption."
Your "employers" are a self styled aristocracy, are they not?
“Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.”
~ Justice John Paul Stevens
Rothschild owned Blackstone Group benefits from missing flight 370, becoming primary patent holder of new technology, reports say
In this bizarre case of the missing Malaysian airliner, one plus one is starting to equal two
By Shepard Ambellas
AUSTIN (INTELLIHUB) — New information, fact checked by Intellihub News, may shed some light on the missing Malaysian Airlines flight which ...more was recently reported by Malaysian officials to have ended tragically in the Indian Ocean despite the lack of physical evidence.
While the disappearance of MH370 which had 239 people aboard is tragic, new bombshell information reveals that a Texas-based technology giant, Freescale Semiconductor Ltd., may have benefited in some way from the missing airliner which was reported to have been carrying 20 of Freescale’s employees. Although it’s obvious the loss of human life likely saddened employees and co-workers of Freescale, the possibility still remains that higher-ups in the corporation may have benefitted from the event.
“Freescale previously confirmed that the 20 employees — 12 from Malaysia and eight from China — were among 239 people on flight MH370. The company has not released the names of those employees, and again declined to do so on Monday.”, as reported by Brian Gaar, the American Statesman, Mar. 24.
It has also been mentioned in a statement by a company spokesperson that the employees who were aboard MH370, were extremely talented and valuable in the technological field.
Freescale Semiconductor Ltd. is primarily owned by the Blackstone Group, i.e. Lord Jacob Rothschild, the same group responsible for spraying the highly-toxic Corexit 500A into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico in the months following the BP oil spill as reported early on by Intelihub News. Shockingly, we also see the Carlyle Group listed as a secondary investor adding another layer of suspicion for investigators.
The official entry listed under Freescale Semiconductor’s “financials” section on Wikipedia states:
On September 15, 2006, Freescale agreed to a $17.6 billion buyout by a consortium led by Blackstone Group and its co-investors, Carlyle Group, TPG Capital, and Permira. The buyout offer was accepted on November 13, 2006 following a vote by company shareholders. The purchase, which closed on December 1, 2006, was the largest private buyout of a technology company until the Dell buyout of 2013 and is one of the ten largest buyouts of all time.
As a journalist, I have to point out the vast amount of monies invested into this technology firm. It’s not like $17.9B is a drop in the bucket by any means, likely signifying the true importance of this corporation. I also have to question why so many Freescale employees were on the same flight at the same time, as four of them were reported by several sources to have been U.S. patent holders of a new technology. This would likely have been a breach of protocol, but at the least a costly oversight.
In fact it’s been reported that Peid Ong Wang, Suzhou, Zhijun Chen, Suzhou, Zhihong Cheng, Suzhou and Li Ying, Suzhou, Freescale employees from China who were said to have been onboard flight 370, were each 20% holders of U.S. Patent #US008671381B1. Shockingly, the remaining 20% has been reported to be held by Freescale Semiconductor Ltd., which now after the disappearance of flight 370 becomes the sole patent holder. In laymen’s terms, Lord Jacob Rothschild is now the patent holder by virtue of invested interest into Freescale Semiconductor Ltd.
To bring things further into perspective, putting the icing on the cake, the Rothschild dynasty owns the Malaysian Central Bank which in-turn is heavily invested into the Malaysian government and Malaysian Airlines.
Need I say more?
hmmmm
Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:23 AM PDT.
Guess who got Obamacare money? Of course it's the Kochs!
by Joan McCarterFollow .
Moocher.
Here's a fun question, posed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
"If the Affordable Care Act is so awful," Reid asked, "why did Koch Industries use it to their advantage?"
That's a rhetorical question, by the way. The answer is because they could ...more get a big ol' chunk of money from the federal government, that's why. Congress created a $5 billion temporary reinsurance fund in the Affordable Care Act, to subsidize the cost to employers for providing ongoing coverage for people who retire before Medicare eligibility. The Kochs, of course, took a chunk of that.
The Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, Reid said, "helped the company pay health insurance costs for its retirees who are not covered by Medicare." Reid asked sarcastically: "So it's OK for Koch Industries to save money through Obamacare" even as Koch-related groups seek the law's repeal. […]
Federal records show that Koch Industries received $1.4 million in early retiree subsidies. That's considerably less than the sums many other employers received. A Koch Industries spokesman said he had no comment on Reid's latest criticisms.
Other companies did receive a lot more: UPS got $37 million; Union Pacific $9.7 million; Altria Client Services nearly $11 million; and AT&T $213 million. All of those companies donate more heavily to Republicans, but none of these companies have made it their mission to kill Obamacare. That makes the Kochs a special case. But very typically Republican
Some of the groups the Koch brothers donate too may attack Obamacare in the process, but that is unrelated. Many people have conflated the Koch brothers to donating to many things they do directly support -- for instance, restricting abortion. They donate to free market organizations. ...more Since they donate to so many big organization (like AEI), that in turn donate to many different campaign, that you can link many things to the Koch Brothers. The overriding goal of their donations, however, is to preserve economic freedom and economic literacy, and that is something we should all applaud.
When this country was founded, corporations were not permitted to influence politics, donate to political campaigns, or influence elections. They existed to conduct business, and were tightly regulated. The Koch brothers violate said founding principal on a regular basis, and historically speaking, it is UN-American behavior.