Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (80610)	3/8/2010 9:58:18 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224757

Poll shows Obama, Dems losing ground By Joseph Curl washingtontimes.com A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago and think President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security, a new poll finds. The Democracy Corps-Third Way survey released Monday finds that by a 10-point margin -- 51 percent to 41 percent -- Americans think the standing of the U.S. dropped during the first 13 months of Mr. Obama's presidency. "This is surprising, given the global acclaim and Nobel peace prize that flowed to the new president after he took office," said pollsters for the liberal-leaning organizations. On the national security front, a massive gap has emerged, with 50 percent of likely voters saying Republicans would likely do a better job than Democrats, a 14-point swing since May. Thirty-three percent favored Democrats. "The erosion since May is especially strong among women, and among independents, who now favor Republicans on this question by a 56 to 20 percent margin," the pollsters said in their findings. A May 2009 survey by the pollsters found the public saw the Democratic and Republican parties as equally able to handle national security (41 percent trusted Democrats more, and 43 percent trusted Republicans more.) On conducting the war on terrorism, the two parties were tied at 41 percent. The Democrats' gap on national security has widened on several other fronts: • "Keeping America safe": Democrats now trail by 13 points (34 percent to 47 percent.) The gap was just 5 points in July 2008. • "Ensuring a strong military": Democrats trail by 31 points (27 percent to 58 percent.) • "Making America safer from nuclear threats": Democrats trail by 11 points (34 percent to 45 percent,) "despite the president's strong actions and speeches on steps to reduce nuclear dangers," the pollsters said. The poll, conducted late last month, found "the administration's response to the Christmas Day terrorist attempt has contributed to the erosion." "While public polling showed that initial approval of Obama's response was above 50 percent, two months of Republican criticism have taken a toll. Now a narrow 46 to 42 percent plurality of likely voters say they feel less confident about the administration's handling of national security because of how it responded to the incident," the pollsters said. In addition, the detention of terrorist suspects and the Obama proposal to prosecute suspects in civil trials in New York City, which was later abandoned, also have taken a toll on the president's approval ratings. "Whereas a majority of the public approves of the job President Obama is doing in most aspects of national security, a 51 to 44 percent majority of likely voters disapproves of his efforts on the prosecution and interrogation of terrorism suspects," the pollsters found. Democracy Corps calls itself an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to making the government of the United States more responsive to the American people." It was founded in 1999 by former Clinton adviser James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, a leading Democratic pollster. Third Way calls itself "the leading moderate think-tank of the progressive movement."

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (80610)	3/9/2010 5:47:00 AM
From: tonto	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224757

We should not walk away from Obamacare. We should run away from it and do a better plan. It is never right to pass bad bills. This bill is wrong.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (80610)	3/9/2010 7:15:13 AM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224757

Congressional Report: Deficit Will Be Much Worse Than Obama Says Monday, 08 Mar 2010 07:11 AM Article Font Size A new congressional report released Friday says the United States' long-term fiscal woes are even worse than predicted by President Barack Obama's grim budget submission last month. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that Obama's budget plans would generate deficits over the upcoming decade that would total $9.8 trillion. That's $1.2 trillion more than predicted by the administration. The agency says its future-year predictions of tax revenues are more pessimistic than the administration's. That's because CBO projects slightly slower economic growth than the White House. The deficit picture has turned alarmingly worse since the recession that started at the end of 2007, never dipping below 4 percent of the size of the economy over the next decade. Economists say that deficits of that size are unsustainable and could put upward pressure on interest rates, crowd out private investment in the economy and ultimately erode the nation's standard of living. Still, the Feb. 1 White House budget plan was a largely stand-pat document that avoided difficult decisions on curbing the unsustainable growth of federal benefit programs like the Medicare health care program for the elderly and Medicaid, which provides health care to the poor and disabled. Instead, Obama has created an 18-member fiscal reform commission that's charged with coming up with a plan to shrink the deficit to 3 percent of the economy within five years. But the Republicans to be named to the panel by congressional GOP leaders are unlikely to go along with any tax increases that might be proposed, which could ensure election-year gridlock. "While the president is intent on ramming through Congress a new trillion-dollar health-care entitlement, he appears far less concerned with addressing the looming crisis of entitlement spending already on the books," said Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the Budget Committee. "Instead, he delegates this task to a 'Fiscal Commission' — which would not even report until after the next election." The report says that extending tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under GOP President George W. Bush and continuing to update the alternative minimum tax so that it won't hit millions of middle-class taxpayers would cost $3 trillion over 2011-2020. The tax cuts expire at the end of this year and Obama wants to extend them — except for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000. For the ongoing budget year, CBO predicts a record $1.5 trillion deficit. That's actually a little better than predicted by the White House, but at 10 percent of gross domestic product, it's bigger than any deficit in history other than those experienced during World War II. The new report predicts that debt held by investors, including China, would spike from $7.5 trillion at the end of last year to $20.3 trillion in 2020. That means interest payments would more than quadruple — from $209 billion this year, to $916 billion by the end of the decade. © Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (80610)	3/9/2010 7:36:24 AM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224757

From Brumar on the Moderate thread: To be (a lawyer) or not to be... Larwyn received this "over the transom". Perhaps some of our reporters-in-training can give Biff Spackle a run for his money and chase down some of these leads. It's been a while since good ol' Biff had a scoop, ya' know. To be (a lawyer) or not to be... Is the President's resume accurate when it comes to his career and qualifications? I can corroborate that Obama's "teaching career" at Chicago was, to put it kindly, a sham. I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct. The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement). Consider this: 1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. 2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993. 3. So, we have the President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts. 4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor". Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago. 5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008. 6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law. 7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. 8. The B-Cast posted the video. 9. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal." 10. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech? When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight. President Barack Obama - Editor of the Harvard Law Review - Has No Law License?: I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since(a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel - and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license. But being a licensed professional myself, I knew that every state not only requires licensure, they make it possible to check online the status of any licensed professional. So I did, and here's the results from the ARDC Website: She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you "voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends you. Here's an illustration: I'm a nurse. At various times in my 28 years of nursing, I've done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always,always renewed my nursing license - simply because it's easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks,etc., etc. . . I've worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licenses as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse. I happen to know there is currently in the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, Indiana an inmate who is a licensed physician,convicted of murder when he chased the two burglars who entered his home and terrorized his family into the street and killed them. (And I can't say I blame him for that, either.) [ I'm shocked this guy is in prison. ] This physician still has an active medical license and still sees patients, writes prescriptions, etc. all from inside the prison. And he renews his medical license every two years, too. I tried looking up why she would "Voluntarily surrender" her license, but Illinois does not have its 1993 records online. But when I searched for "Obama", I found this: "Voluntarily retired" - what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too. As usual, all feedback -- especially rumors, innuendo and outright speculation -- is welcome. ................... At 11:19 PM , Anonymous Matt said... Actually, my understanding is that Mr.Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review, NOT the Editor. The President is an elected position; that is, it is determined by popularity rather than just merit. It is also my understanding that the President of the Harvard Law Review is a figurehead with no real duties and/or requirements to write or edit articles. Looked at in this way it seems oddly appropriate, no? directorblue.blogspot.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (80610)	3/9/2010 7:38:54 AM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224757

More from Brumar: .... He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. .... Message 26356507 Now I understand why - someone made a complaint against him in 2008 for lying on his bar application: Barack Obama Illinois Bar application, Obama lied?, Obama provided false information, IL bar application, Bar Complaint filed, Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, Chicago, Illinois 60601 July 24, 2008 · 16 Comments Did Barack Obama provide false information on his Illinois Bar Application in 1991? Obama has admitted to drug use and and had oustanding fines of $ 400 due in 1991. Apparently a complaint has been filed with the Illinois Bar alleging that Barack Obama did not provide accurate information on his application. The complaint was mailed to: Kenneth G. Jablonski, Clerk Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission One Prudential Plaza, 130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1100 Chicago, Illinois 60601-6219 RE: Barack Hussein Obama, Esquire Admitted December 17, 1991 Rec # 358694732 The records from the US postal system indicate the following: Label/Receipt Number: 7006 2150 0002 2527 0708 Detailed Results: Delivered, July 23, 2008, 2:32 pm, CHICAGO, IL 60601 Arrival at Unit, July 23, 2008, 9:27 am, CHICAGO, IL 60604 Acceptance, July 18, 2008, 3:31 pm, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22905 From the complaint: “Synopsis Of Complaint and Recommended Report NATURE OF THE CASE: a) making a statement of material fact in connection with a bar application that the applicant knows to be false; b) committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law; c) engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; d) engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and e) engaging in conduct which brings the courts or the legal profession into disrepute.” To read more about the complaint, visit here: factsfirstok.blogspot.com citizenwells.wordpress.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (80610)	3/9/2010 8:04:14 AM
From: JakeStraw	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224757

If it's such a great bill then why is there so much opposition?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (80610)	3/9/2010 8:16:56 AM
From: JakeStraw	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224757

Five Words Obama Won't Say • Reconciliation. Last Wednesday the president called for Senate Democrats to use reconciliation to ram a health-care bill through Congress. In the same way he called for a second stimulus back in November without ever saying it, however, "reconciliation" did not cross Mr. Obama's lips as he endorsed it. Instead, he spoke of a vote that is "nothing more than a simple majority." The White House Web page suggests the last time the president uttered the word "reconciliation" in the context of health care was a dismissive answer to a question from John McCain during the bipartisan summit. "I think the American people aren't always all that interested in procedures inside the Senate," he told the Arizona Republican—notwithstanding that Americans seem very much interested in the procedures that led to the Cornhusker Kickback or a federal judgeship for a wavering House Democrat's brother. Not to mention Mr. Obama's own statement in October 2007 that "we are not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-one strategy." • Cadillac. In his town-hall meetings last summer the president spoke frankly of the problem posed by so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans. These are expensive policies, provided by employers, that give people more coverage than what they would choose if they had to buy them on their own, without the tax advantage that comes from getting insurance through their jobs. In September, Mr. Obama told CNN, "I do think that giving a disincentive to insurance companies to offer Cadillac plans that don't make people healthier is part of the way that we're going to bring down health-care costs for everybody over the long term." In other words, a tax on employer-provided health coverage over a certain level. Then, in January, he agreed to a big exemption for unions. In his own proposal released last month, he scaled the tax down for everyone and delayed implementation. As a result, Cadillac is not a word the president brings up himself these days. • C-SPAN. On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama loved the word C-SPAN. As he stated at one point, "we'll have the [health-care] negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Alas, it hasn't turned out that way, and C-SPAN is a word that Mr. Obama no longer volunteers. • Health-care reform. OK, he still says this. But sometime last summer, after the protests, the official name for ObamaCare became "health-insurance reform." This signaled both a ratcheting down of his original ambitions for universal coverage, and a ratcheting up of the rhetoric against the corporate villains who would serve as his foil. Thus yesterday's remarks in Pennsylvania, where the president warned that evil insurance companies will keep on raising premiums "for as long as they can get away with it" unless Congress acts now. • Mandate. During the Democratic presidential primary, Mr. Obama slammed rival Hillary Clinton over the individual mandate. "The main difference between my plan and Senator Clinton's plan," he said, "is that she'd require the government to force you to buy health insurance and she said she'd 'go after' your wages if you don't." Now the Senate and House bills include a mandate that would force Americans to do just that. When asked about it at the recent health-care summit, Mr. Obama did concede he's flip-flopped. But because the word smacks of "force," "mandate" went unmentioned yesterday—and will likely stay that way. So listen closely as the health-care debate comes down to the wire. The words the president won't say are more telling than the words he will. online.wsj.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (80610)	3/9/2010 9:44:55 AM
From: chartseer	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224757

oh bummer! I cannot afford to pay for all my bills now so let me go out and add another bill to all the others. The most quoted phrase from Fredrick Hayek's book "The Road To Serfdom" is "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Don't worry! Be happy! the hopeless comrade chartseer in the new era of hope

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (80610)	3/11/2010 12:54:43 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224757

Over the past year of debate, 10 broad ideas have been offered for bending the health-care cost curve. The Democrats' proposed legislation incorporates virtually every one of them. Incorporating an idea does not imply that your incorporating a good idea, or that your implementing it well, or that your not adding other factors which increase costs even more. Form insurance exchanges. A modest idea at best. In its actually implementation, with all the regulatory control and insurance mandates involved in these exchange, it moves from a modest way to possibly contain costs, to a way to increase costs. Reduce excessive prices Either this is a meaningless tautology (we reduce costs by reducing costs), or it means reducing prices without reducing costs, essentially price controls, which are one of the most consistently bad economic ideas that still get significant support. Well this would be a bit different than normal price controls, its having a government set up as a monopsony buyer for a significant segment of the market, and having them arbitrarily decide to pay less, but the effect is much the same as price controls. Moving to value-based payment in Medicare. An ill defined idea. Also one that's likely to be modest compared to either the remaining forces pushing costs up, or the additional cost increasing factors that the "reform" effort puts in place. Tax generous insurance plans. So taxes, and once again price controls... Empower an independent Medicare advisory board. Pay some people to talk about the problem... Combat Medicare fraud and abuse. Easy to say, not as easy to do (in fact the effort can add more to costs than it recovers in reduced fraudulent claims). If the government can save money here, than why doesn't it do that first as a way of showing it is capable of containing costs before giving it more responsibility, power, and control. Note this is essentially what much of the private insurance company overhead amounts to. To the extent that an effort is launched here it will be increasing the overhead costs that seem to bother so many "reform" proponents. Malpractice reform. They hardly deserve "full credit" here. Also its not a small adder to costs. And such reform doesn't require 2000 page bills. The effort can be done without this monstrosity passing. Invest in information technology. The government has a much worse record of being efficient and productive in this area than the private sector. Look at the FAA's modernization attempts for example. Also this is one more thing that doesn't need a more general reform. To the extent there are some good plans for it, just go ahead and implement those plans. No need for this bill. Prevention. Which is not precisely defined, and which is more likely to increase costs than to decrease them. And again you don't need a 2000 page bill that ceases control of the health insurance industry in order to push prevention. Create a public option. Because nationalizing other industries has worked so well throughout history...