SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (95623)11/18/2010 5:09:30 PM
From: tonto3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224755
 
Spending is and has been out of control. We all know that.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (95623)11/18/2010 5:41:07 PM
From: Sedohr Nod2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224755
 
What spending cuts?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (95623)11/18/2010 6:44:57 PM
From: chartseer3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224755
 
You omitted the tech bubble.

comrade chartseer



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (95623)11/18/2010 7:41:43 PM
From: lorne2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224755
 
reid now got to pay back for all the illegal mex/hispanic votes that put him back in senate, wonder how he pays back for the dead voters?

Categories:Immigration.Reid vows DREAM Act vote in lame duck
November 17, 2010
politico.com

A day after President Barack Obama urged a vote this year on the DREAM Act as a “down payment” on broad immigration reform, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed Wednesday to move the immigration bill to the floor during the lame-duck session.

“I will move the DREAM Act as a standalone bill in the lame duck,” Reid wrote on his Twitter account. “It's good for the economy & Pentagon says good for natl security.”

On the campaign trail, the Nevada Democrat promised Hispanic supporters he would bring the stalled legislation to a vote after the Nov. 2 midterm election. The DREAM Act provides a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants who complete two years of college or military service.

Senate Republicans blocked the legislation before the election when Reid and other Democrats tried to attach it as an amendment to the defense authorization bill.

On Tuesday, Obama met with Hispanic members of Congress, saying he would use his influence to get other senators on board. According to Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who attended the meeting, Obama said: “I will call the members and say I’m for comprehensive immigration reform … I’d like [the DREAM Act] as a down payment.”



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (95623)11/18/2010 8:02:22 PM
From: lorne1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224755
 
Brother, Can You Spare a Waiver?
By William Sullivan
November 17, 2010
americanthinker.com

In an unprecedented turn of events, massive corporate interests and various unions have been selectively granted a waiver for the "annual limit requirements" of ObamaCare. These are requirements in the health care bill that company-sponsored health care plans have high minimum thresholds for spending on "essential health benefits."

Why did these companies need this exemption? The Department of Health and Human Services sums it up like this in a disclaimer:

Applications for waivers from annual limit requirements are reviewed on a case by case basis by Department officials who look at a series of factors including whether or not a premium increase is large or if a significant number of enrollees would lose access to their current plan because the coverage would not be offered in the absence of a waiver.

Two unpleasant implications should stand out when Americans read this statement: large premium increases and enrollees losing access to their current plans. One year ago, while Obama and Congress were out there pitching, these two outcomes were presented as outside the realm of possibility with this legislation.

Losing access to our employer-sponsored plans? We were assured that that was just a conservative scare tactic -- you could always keep your company plan if you want. And increased premiums? We were assured that such talk was just more fear-mongering from the right -- if Americans were smart enough to understand the bill, they'd know it would decrease the cost of health care and thereby decrease premiums, not increase them.

But the reality is that this "annual limit requirement" alone would guarantee that a premium increase or dropped coverage would be a likely outcome for Americans who enjoy company health benefits.

Many Americans have what are called "mini-med" plans. These provide highly affordable health coverage, and their affordability is tied to the fact that there is usually a cap on annual benefits. But these plans with lower caps are outlawed by the new health care legislation, and by 2014, no caps will be allowed on company health care plans whatsoever. So going forward, companies must make the choice to offer these employees a health care plan with a higher cap (a minimum of $750K this year, a far cry from the many affordable plans with caps of $10K), or they must drop the health care coverage for their enrollees in these plans. If they opt for the former, it will translate to a more expensive policy, which will in turn translate to higher premiums for participants as the cheaper policies can no longer be offered by law. If they opt for the latter, enrollees will lose their health benefits altogether.

That's not a very good deal for Americans or American business, so the waivers sound like a good idea. But it seems you have to be in a pretty exclusive club to get one, which has caused a heightened scrutiny for these waivers. Consider that these 111 companies and unions that have received them are all influential entities with considerable financial or political clout.

So Robert Gibbs had to defend the distribution of waivers for these companies in a recent press conference. "The waivers are about ensuring and protecting the coverage that people have until there are better options available to them in 2014." He speaks on behalf of the administration, assuring us that they are allowing these waivers to protect Americans. Not surprisingly, he fails to address the fact that this administration's flagship legislation is the very reason we need this protection in the first place.

But the Health and Human Services disclaimer reveals more than Gibbs and the administration probably would have liked. According to the disclaimer, we can assume that if a premium increase is not too "large," or the result is that a less "significant number" of enrollees lose their benefits, the government will not grant the waiver. This is absolute proof that ObamaCare is very capable of driving up premium cost and resulting in dropped coverage, and that government officials are subjectively deciding who can be exempt from the law. So even though ObamaCare was proposed as a means to lower premiums and give Americans more options, the reality is that the fear-mongering conservatives were right about a few things. Premiums can rise, and options can be taken away, leaving a government waiver or the "better options" of ObamaCare as the only alternatives.

Considering the faulty promises of this administration and the spot-on predictions of its opposition, I shudder in anticipation of the revelation we may find about the macabre "death panels" that have been panned as a right-wing myth.

It seems that all the right people are getting waivers to opt out of ObamaCare: the right unions, the right companies, and all the right people in Congress. In fact, Congress went to great lengths to legislate exemptions from Obamacare before even passing the bill, completely waiving their own need to ever adhere to it! That fact alone should speak volumes about ObamaCare's merits. If it is good for Americans and good for American business as they claimed, why is it not good enough for the people who designed it and rammed it into law in spite of popular opinion?

It is painfully apparent that ObamaCare is not good for Americans and that it was grossly misrepresented prior to passage. So please, Mr. Obama, while it seems we might have caught your administration in the mood to grant certain favors, may we humble millions who don't want this law to affect us and our families please have our waivers, too?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (95623)11/19/2010 1:27:58 AM
From: jmhollen  Respond to of 224755
 
Ethics Committee recommends censure for (Demoncrap swindler) Rangel
Los Angeles Times - James Oliphant - ?1 hour ago?
The bipartisan ethics panel recommended Thursday that embattled New York Democrat Charles B. Rangel be censured by the full House of Representatives for ethics violations, the stiffest penalty a member can ...
.
.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (95623)11/19/2010 8:16:39 AM
From: lorne3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224755
 
How to eliminate clueless voters
November 19, 2010
wnd.com

I was happy to see Ann Coulter's recent article about the need to repeal the 26th Amendment, as preventing immature young adults from voting is something I have long advocated. In some ways, it's more harmful than the 14th Amendment, whose misinterpretation encourages ready-to-deliver Mexican women to scamper across our southern border and give birth to freshly minted U.S. citizens.

In her article, Coulter focuses on research done over the past five years that has shown that human brains are not fully developed until age 25 and are particularly deficient in their frontal lobes until then. This is important, she says, because the frontal lobes control decision-making, rational thinking, judgment, and the ability to plan ahead and resist impulses.

My mind harkens back to the Barack Obama of the 1960s, who ran against an incumbent president, Lyndon Johnson, for the Democratic nomination in 1968. That particular version of Barack Obama went by the name of Robert F. Kennedy (RFK).

Kennedy was a corrupt and dangerous man who, like all Kennedys, lived his life by one set of rules while insisting that others live by rules he deemed to be right for them. Had he not been assassinated, RFK undoubtedly would have been elected president (especially considering that incumbent Lyndon Johnson decided not to run again) and probably would have succeeded in transforming the U.S. into a full-fledged socialist country decades before Barack Obama came on the scene.

Kennedy was considered a champion of that greatest of all political scams, "social justice." Of course, there is no such thing as social justice in the absolute sense of the term. That's why such an abstract concept can only be implemented by force, which in turn requires iron-fisted leaders with such melancholy names as Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh.

While RFK, like Obama, attracted left-wing radicals from many sectors of society, the group I most identify with him is young adults. The kids who voted for BHO in 2008 are two generations removed from Bobby Kennedy's adoring, youthful supporters, but, like their predecessors, they, too, got caught up in the save-the-planet, anti-business, spread-the-wealth hysteria.

As Coulter points out, voters 18 to 29 years of age voted in favor of Obama by a whopping 66-31 percentage spread. And since they comprised 20 percent of the number of people who voted, they were able to put a social-justice guy into the White House whose policies are guaranteed to destroy their own futures.

Why would young adults who, for the most part, are reasonably intelligent and college educated, do such a self-destructive thing? Because, as we now know, the brain is not fully developed until age 25 – meaning that Obama's ascendancy to the power throne was made possible by millions of young adults whose brains were not even physiologically capable of making rational decisions!

Voting for people to govern other human beings is, at best, a questionable and corrupt activity – an activity that is all about lies, smear campaigns, money, pandering, bribery and thugs trying to intimidate voters with nightsticks. But if we must elect officials to govern us, I would go much further than just repealing the 26th Amendment.

I'd like to see an amendment that would require voters to be at least 30 years of age. Even though research indicates that the brain is fully developed by age 25, you have to give a newly formed adult brain a reasonable period of time to experience enough life to be in a position to shed itself of the bad habits it has developed over a period of 25 years. This is particularly true if a young adult has gone to college and been fed large doses of misinformation about history, economics and the Constitution.

Admittedly, some people are mature enough to vote at 18, while others are too immature to vote at 40. Life is imperfect, so, unfortunately, arbitrary judgments cannot always be avoided. But the one thing I can say with certainty is that 30 is light years ahead of 18 when it comes to knowledge, wisdom and common sense.

That, however, is not where I'd stop. I'd also like to see a constitutional amendment passed that would disqualify government employees and people receiving government benefits from voting. They have too much of a direct financial interest in the outcome of the voting process, as is evidenced by the fact that the average government salary is about $72,000 a year versus roughly $50,000 for the average private-sector worker.

A person with such a vested financial interest in the outcome of elections cannot reasonably be expected to vote for politicians who understand that the Constitution does not give the government the right to redistribute wealth. And since congresspersons make more than three times the latter amount and are in a position to vote themselves endless benefits and perks, they, too, should be disqualified from voting.

I would make an exception for Social Security recipients for now, because that's a program that was literally forced upon the entire population, and people have been misled into believing that they have "paid into the system." Hopefully, Social Security ultimately will be phased out, in which case it would no longer be an issue.

By contrast, kids who join the military do so by choice, a choice they are not mature enough to make. In any event, it doesn't make them any more capable of making rational choices when it comes to voting.

That said, I would be happy if Congress would just take the first step and revoke the voting rights of impressionable kids who are still engrossed in tree-hugging, the romanticizing of Che Guevera and other embarrassingly immature activities. As Voltaire warned, "Men will stop committing atrocities when men stop believing absurdities." And, for the most part, men (and women) tend to believe many more absurdities before their brains are fully developed.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (95623)11/19/2010 10:23:54 AM
From: longnshort4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224755
 
How about Rockefeller wanting to kick FOX off the air while his wife is President of WETA a PBS station in DC