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 (128184)	3/30/2012 8:22:01 AM
From: lorne	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224718

ken..is this possible? and right under your nose..can you incite racial tensoins on both sides? will your efforts help obama get a few more votes? Black Washington State School Superintendent Accused of Being Racist Mar 21, 2012 byPraise Cleveland praisecleveland.com Nine employees of the Tukwila School District have filed complaints of racial discrimination against their superintendent, Ethelda Burke. Their attorney filed the complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They each have a story about the comments they’ve endured. They range from vice principals, to teachers, to dispatchers. “She said to me you have to stop being a big, black man scaring our white drivers,” says Doc Fells, driver trainer and dispatcher for the district. “And it numbed me.” A group of female staffers at Showalter Middle School says their superintendent once referred to them as slaves. “I was pissed,” says Marva Harris, school security officer. “I couldn’t believe my ears she would refer to professional African-American women as slaves,” says teacher Sandra Goins. J.D. Hill, athletic director and head of transportation, says Burke had a nickname for him. “When I walked into her office she said ‘Hey, J-Dark, how are you doing?’ J-Dark was my name for Ethelda, my pet name for a month, in a professional environment,” says Hill.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (128184)	3/30/2012 11:10:48 AM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224718

Even If It Survives the Court, the Health Care Law Is Doomed A Commentary By Scott Rasmussen in Political Commentary Email thisShareThis Related Articles 56% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law 54% Expect U.S. Supreme Court To Overturn Health Care Law 62% Think Health Law Will Cause Companies To Drop Employee Health Insurance Just 35% Are Confident Medicare Will Pay All Promised Benefits 57% Haven’t Been Impacted By Health Care Law Yet 39% Favor Free Health Care for All Americans Friday, March 30, 2012 Media coverage now implies that the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the fate of President Obama's health care law. But nothing the court decides will keep the law alive for more than a brief period of time. There are three ways the health care law could meet its end. The first, obviously, is the Supreme Court could declare some or all of it unconstitutional in June. If it gets past that hurdle, the law also could be ended by Election 2012. If a Republican president is elected, the GOP will almost certainly also win control of the Senate and retain control of the House. While the details might take time, a Republican sweep in November would ultimately end the Obama experiment. But even if the law survives the Supreme Court and the next election, the clock will be ticking. Recent estimates suggest that the law would cause 11 million people to lose their employer-provided insurance and be forced onto a government-backed insurance plan. That's a problem because 77 percent of those who now have insurance rate their current coverage as good or excellent. Only 3 percent rate their coverage as poor. For most of the 11 million forced to change their insurance coverage then, it will be received as bad news and create a pool of vocally unhappy voters. Additionally, the cost estimates for funding the program are likely to keep going up. Eighty-one percent of voters expect it to cost more than projected, and recent Congressional Budget Office estimates indicate voters are probably right. But it's not the narrow specifics and cost estimates that guarantee the ultimate demise of the president's health care plan. It's the fact that the law runs contrary to basic American values and perceptions. This, then, is the third hurdle the law faces: Individual Americans recognize that they have more power as consumers than they do as voters. Their choices in a free market give them more control over the economic world than choosing one politician or another. Seventy-six percent think they should have the right to choose between expensive insurance plans with low deductibles and low-cost plans with higher deductibles. A similar majority believes everyone should be allowed to choose between expensive plans that cover just about every imaginable medical procedure and lower-cost plans that cover a smaller number of procedures. All such choices would be banned under the current health care law. Americans want to be empowered as health care consumers. Eighty-two percent believe that if an employer pays for health insurance, the worker should be able to use that money and select an insurance product that meets his or her individual needs. If the plan they select costs less than the company plan, most believe the worker should get to keep the change. It's not just the idea of making the choice that drives these numbers, it's the belief held by most Americans that competition will do more than government regulation to reduce the cost of health care. For something as fundamental as medical care, government policy must be consistent with deeply held American values. That's why an approach that increases consumer choice has solid support and a plan that relies on mandates and trusting the government cannot survive