Jack & Jill Politics

AFTERNOON OPEN THREAD IS UP!!!

The President is on FIYAHH !!! about Healthcare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEpaEBf67yk

"I will NOT support the status quo!!" Obama told them

The time is NOW!!

And the folks in Congress are pushing back...diluge THEM with opposition!!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/citi...

Whiterose - I actually "worked" all day today and missed all the action lol.

Loved the clip you provided

House Lets States Do Single-Payer Healthcare
David Swanson July 17, 2009

On Friday morning at 9:45 a.m. ET in the House Committee on Education and Labor, the committee members voted 25 to 19 to pass Congressman Dennis Kucinich's amendment to the healthcare reform bill. This amendment, if it survives the full House, the Senate, the conference, and the President, will not alter the federal legislation except to allow states to create single-payer healthcare systems if they choose to. If this change to the bill makes news, it will pass the Senate, because there is no legitimate argument against it, and the support for it is bipartisan.

The committee members voted in order of seniority through all the Democrats and then the Republicans, returning to allow those who passed or were not present on the first round or the second round to cast their vote. No members switched their votes from yes to no or vice versa, during the voting, but several passed and then voted after hearing their colleagues vote. In the final count, 25 voted Yes, 19 No, 2 left their vote as "Pass," and 3 were not there or did not respond at all.

On the first go round, these Democrats voted Yes: Woolsey, Kucinich, Holt, Grijalva, Loebsack, and Fudge. Not nearly enough, but then came the Republicans, not a single one of whom has supported single-payer healthcare, but many of whom apparently respect states' rights: Kline, Petri, McKeon, Souder, Ehlers, Biggert, Platts, Wilson, McMorris Rogers, Price, and Guthrie. That gave us 17 votes going into round two. Among Democrats, we then picked up Payne, Scott, Shea Porter, and Polis. Among Republicans, Hoekstra and Castle joined in. We had 23 votes moving into round three. Two more Democrats, Tierney and Tonko, brought the total to 25.

Then you have the list of members who voted for the arguably unconstitutional step of banning states from providing their citizens with healthcare, a step for which no legitimate case has been made, but which the health insurance companies strongly favor. First and foremost was Committee Chairman George Miller who led the voting with a resounding "No." He was joined on the first round by Democrats Kildee, Andrews, Hinojosa, McCarthy, Bishop, Sestak, Altmire, Hare, Courtney, Sablan, and Titus, and Republicans McClintock, Hunter, Roe, and Thompson. On the second round Democrats Davis and Hirono voted No, along with Republican Cassidy. On the third round, no more Nos were added. Not voting yes or no were: Wu, Clarke, Pierluisi, Chu, and Bishop of Utah.

There are major campaigns with a good chance of passing single-payer healthcare if Congress permits it in the following states: Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, Ohio, Colorado, and Massachusetts.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/...

It is so tastless for MSNBC to continue to play footage of Michael Jackson with his hair on fire. I am so over it.

If given the chance, I would drop my Aetna health insurance like a bad transmission. I will definitely be buying the gov health insurance. I would like to have the congressional health care.

Dr. Nancy is getting ready to "discuss" the issue of the surgeon general's weight. As for Sanjay Gupta, I have heard him say some curious things while reporting for CNN, such as certain treatments being too expensive. I have a feeling that Sanjay may have had too close of a relationship with the pharaceutical &/or insurance industrial complexes.

I loved the article about Elite colleges/dim white kids. We all know it's true.

The soda industry is running ads here asking citizens to contact Congress and tell them not to tax sweet drinks. I'm going to contact them and tell them to definitely tax sweet drinks. I would even be down with a ban on high frutose corn syrup. How about you?

"It is so tastless for MSNBC to continue to play footage of Michael Jackson with his hair on fire. I am so over it."

"The soda industry is running ads here asking citizens to contact Congress and tell them not to tax sweet drinks. I'm going to contact them and tell them to definitely tax sweet drinks."

co-signing

I am down with a BAN on HFCS!!!

definitely it is bad for us...it is not less expensive than sugar..but boy does it increase shelf life....and stay in our cells 4EVA too!! We can't process it, it is a culprit in diabetes and the nationwide obesity epidemic.

BAN IT!!

ATTENTION ASIAN-AMERICANS! They're looking to blame you, too!

The New White Flight

By SUEIN HWANG

WSJ, November 19, 2005; Page A1

CUPERTINO, Calif. -- By most measures, Monta Vista High here and Lynbrook High, in nearby San Jose, are among the nation's top public high schools. Both boast stellar test scores, an array of advanced-placement classes and a track record of sending graduates from the affluent suburbs of Silicon Valley to prestigious colleges.

But locally, they're also known for something else: white flight. Over the past 10 years, the proportion of white students at Lynbrook has fallen by nearly half, to 25% of the student body. At Monta Vista, white students make up less than one-third of the population, down from 45% -- this in a town that's half white. Some white Cupertino parents are instead sending their children to private schools or moving them to other, whiter public schools. More commonly, young white families in Silicon Valley say they are avoiding Cupertino altogether.

Whites aren't quitting the schools because the schools are failing academically. Quite the contrary: Many white parents say they're leaving because the schools are too academically driven and too narrowly invested in subjects such as math and science at the expense of liberal arts and extracurriculars like sports and other personal interests.

The two schools, put another way that parents rarely articulate so bluntly, are too Asian.

Cathy Gatley, co-president of Monta Vista High School's parent-teacher association, recently dissuaded a family with a young child from moving to Cupertino because there are so few young white kids left in the public schools. "This may not sound good," she confides, "but their child may be the only Caucasian kid in the class." All of Ms. Gatley's four children have attended or are currently attending Monta Vista. One son, Andrew, 17 years old, took the high-school exit exam last summer and left the school to avoid the academic pressure. He is currently working in a pet-supply store. Ms. Gatley, who is white, says she probably wouldn't have moved to Cupertino if she had anticipated how much it would change.

READ MORE: http://seattlecentral.edu/faculty/jhubert/white...

Send this to Pat Buchannon

When my wife and I go to the library every weekend, it is full of asian students working their asses off. If only black students would spend their weekends in the library,< sigh>.

deleted. even though you deserved it.

When you speak, please know what you're speaking about. You sound like a total jackass. Have you been in every community in America? There is a huge world beyond your damn library.

It is what i can see. Thus i can speak about it. You write like an total jackass if you think that a library is not indicative of study habits.

If only black students would spend their weekends in the library,< sigh>.


That is speaking of blacks students as a whole. You didNOT say....if only black students in my community would spend their weekends in the library.


You ARE a jackass if you think what you see in your damn library represents blacks in general. I see black students @ our local library checking out books or behind a computer every week-end.

When I go to the downtown Minneapolis library every other weekend, the library is full of black students sitting behind computers. <YEAH!>

Are they on facebook? did you look at the screens? I think not.

Ignoramus!

I don't need to look at the screens.

I mentor a group of black teenage girls and they use the computers. Get it.

They have the knowledge and SKILLS to USEthe computer. That's huge, because this is the information age, and if they have the technological skills, the world is at their finger tips.

Let's put it this way, I'd rather see a library full of black students sitting behind computers than on the street selling drugs and engaging in gang behaviors.

The idiot walked into that one! KaPow!

SMH, Justice. If ignorance was poison, folks would be dead by now.

You ASS-Uming that the black students are looking at facebook and not studying is no different than the racist stereotyping done by whites about black people.

Oh, wait....

"they're leaving because the schools are too academically driven and too narrowly invested in subjects such as math and science at the expense of liberal arts and extracurriculars like sports and other personal interests."

Translation: they can't COMPETE!!...this is the way it has always been...if they can not achieve based on white entitlement ...they flee!

O and the stories they make up to account for what they do are amazing..this is why we have all the Christian schools, they refuse to integrate...this is why public schools are fighting against vouchers...they want the MONEY for their pvt schools!

Again and again...they change the rules...


"Andrew, 17 years old, took the high-school exit exam last summer and left the school to avoid the academic pressure. He is currently working in a pet-supply store"


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!

Right on the money, WRB.

LOL! @ Andrew and the pet supply store.

Channeling Johnny Cochran: "IF YOU CAN'T COMPETE, YOU MUST RETREAT!

BWA HA HA HA HA!!!

No you didn't! LOL!

LMAO @ you WRB and that article.

Translation: they can't COMPETE!!...this is the way it has always been...if they can not achieve based on white entitlement ...they flee!

That's why they are against affirmative action, because they would actually have to compete against ppl of color with great minds that have to work twice as hard to get less than half the recognition.

We see them. We know.

I saw that article a year or so ago, Sepia. I remember being struck by a description of the mother of a white student taking her son to his school to play in a Saturday pee-wee football game, and being dismayed by all the Asian kids who were being dropped off for study classes.

The irony is that they are the ones doing what they accuse minorities (particularly blacks) of doing: Blaming everyone but themselves.

And what's up with the Sybil Complex in regards to affirmative action? One minute, they want AA abolished because it discriminates against the poor whittle white people, the next they want a form of AA because the big, bad Asian kids are too smart.

White folks don't have issues, they have subscriptions.

True dat, Sepia

"White folks don't have issues, they have subscriptions.'

And they need PRESCRIPTIONS.

Ok, it wasn't football, it was soccer:

"Jane Doherty, a retirement-community administrator, chose to send her two boys elsewhere. When her family moved to Cupertino from Indiana over a decade ago, Ms. Doherty says her top priority was moving into a good public-school district. She paid no heed to a real-estate agent who told her of the town's burgeoning Asian population."

"She says she began to reconsider after her elder son, Matthew, entered Kennedy, the middle school that feeds Monta Vista. As he played soccer, Ms. Doherty watched a line of cars across the street deposit Asian kids for after-school study. She also attended a Monta Vista parents' night and came away worrying about the school's focus on test scores and the big-name colleges its graduates attend."

Today's Conversation:
The Black Community. What Black Community?
http://bit.ly/rNxS

OMG! Have y'all seen the new line of attack on ReginaBenjamin, the nominee for US SurgeonGeneral? They are asking can she serve and be a role model when she is obese!!

I kid you not!

wtf...this is terrible!!!

Do you have THAT link? We've been discussing her. Everyone is beyond impressed and psyched about her credentials, her background, and more importantly - her service.

I should have said heard vs. seen...it was that MSNBC newswomen, with the dark hair, MelissaBrewer? not Nora but the one that comes on right b4 AndreaMitchell

But here are some links..the blogosphere is going nuts..just mean:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/200...

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/134852.html

blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/07/13/regina-benjamin-and-american-health-care/

http://www.thatblackgirlsite.com/thatblackgirlb...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/13/...


MEAN..MEAN...MEAN!!

Dr. Nancy Snyderman?

No, I think her name is MarissaBrewer

Oh, I know who it is - Contessa Brewer....kinda youngish - 30s or so.

Sigh. I'm really beginning to hate these people with the heat of a thousand burning nuns.

WHERE did you ever come up with that line......????


LMAO .

It's an old chestnut from the Television Without Pity forums.

Sotomayor, the GOP and Latinos
by bfuentes [Subscribe]
Share this on Twitter - Sotomayor, the GOP and Latinos Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 07:42:30 AM PDT
I am sure a lot has been written of how the Sotomayor nomination and the blow back by the GOP has hurt the GOP's standing in the Hispanic/Latino community.

I have a different viewpoint onto the whole scenario than most. My father is Puerto Rican and my mother is very, very anglo(New England, protestant). Recently, we had a 50th anniversary celebration for them and I had the honor to host the family patriarch, an uncle, at my house.

This gentleman was born and raised in Puerto Rico, spent a few years in New York City and has been back in Puerto Rico for the last 50 years. From very modest beginnings he rose from the mail room to the the highest echelons in the banking industry in Puerto Rico. He is friends with US Congressmen, and many people attempted to convince him to pursue politics in the 70's and 80's. He felt he would be more effective out of government than in.

These are the reasons I respect him and his thoughts and opinions.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/17/754479/...

University of Illinois admissions: Elite high schools from Chicago metro area fatten clout list

Hundreds of students on U. of I.'s clout list graduated from just 22 schools, all but 1 in the metro area
By Tara Malone, Darnell Little and Jodi S. Cohen | Tribune reporters
July 17, 2009


The majority of students who benefited from political connections when applying to the University of Illinois attended elite, affluent high schools, according to a Chicago Tribune analysis of admissions data.

Just how skewed was the campus clout list? Half of the 616 Illinois students who received preferential treatment from 2005 to 2009 graduated from just 22 high schools, all but one in the metro area. Meanwhile, at least 668 Illinois high schools had no clouted applicants at all.

Among the least connected were students from Chicago Public Schools. The state's largest school district has about 19,000 graduating seniors each year. Yet only 25 were placed on the clout list over five years -- fewer than Highland Park High School merited by itself, with 30. The north suburban school graduates about 425 students per year.

Admissions clout clearly thrived in places where families were politically savvy and well-positioned to tap into connections with elected officials and university trustees, said educators and other observers.



"The wealthy schools already have an advantage, and this provides them just one more advantage of how to navigate the system," said Maribeth Vander Weele, one of seven commissioners charged with looking into U. of I. admissions practices.

Others that tallied the most applicants on the Urbana-Champaign clout list include North Shore powerhouse high schools like New Trier Township in Winnetka, Glenbrook North in Northbrook and Glenbrook South in Glenview; private schools such as Loyola Academy in Wilmette, St. Ignatius College Prep in Chicago and Fenwick High School in Oak Park; and top feeders from the affluent west suburbs including Benet Academy in Lisle, Hinsdale Central High School and York Community High in Elmhurst.

During a recent hearing of the Illinois Admissions Review Commission, Chairman Abner Mikva asked undergraduate admissions director Stacey Kostell whether she was struck by how many students on the clout list, known internally as "Category I," came from the North Shore.

"Honestly, no," Kostell replied. "These kids were admitted because of power and money."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-cl...

"These kids were admitted because of power and money."

See? Just like the Boston Herald article I posted below, this article shows who's REALLY getting an unfair advantage. But they wouldn't dare talk about this. This goes to show you why Affirmative Action is still needed.

O no? Why would they do that? This is America...we are a capitalist society..and the one with the most money is 'spose to win...and be appointed to SCOTUS and sit in the OVAL office...hahahahahah

o life is rich with the ironies, of this here democracy

Sen Richard Lugar R Indiana says he'll vote for Sotomayor.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Inspires The Murder Of Children' Well the minute men are on guard protecting the stars and stripes and it seems that even a child is not spared their racist,jingoist vitriol.

I thought Sheriff Joe was under investigation?? Odd, the article failed to mention Shawna Forde.

WITH THIS 'REFORM' YOU WILL LOSE YOUR HEALTH PLAN.

"PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests."

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?u...

The next right wing talking point: Obamacare outlaws private insurance

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/16/754...

Have you read the entire bill? Do you know what's in it and understand how it will effect you? Do you research, read and attempt to educate yourself or do you blindly follow the party line and regurgitate the spin the hacks shovel out?

IBD jumped the gun and got a lot of folks riled up, including me. But if nothing else it has prompted a "LET THE BUYER BEWARE" caution to emerge. It forced people to more closely examine what we will be getting for our 1 TRILLION + and in the end my slow down a process on an important issue that deserves a pragmatic approach and bi-partisan support.

Many Dems have a problem with this bill, including liberal bloggers Mickey Kaus and Ezra Klein, who both support health care reform.

Broaden your horizons and look outside the kos cocoon.

The article goes on to say:

" Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.

Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes. "

I must admit that I have not read the entire bill. In some ways it is based upon the Massachusetts model. Everyone (95% House bill) must either have employer supplied healthcare or buy their own per the terms you outlined above (or Medicare or Medicaid). What they have found in Massachusetts is that many people do not buy healthcare insurance until they needed an operation or some expensive medical work done. The threat of a fine (2.5% of income under the House plan) does not force anyone to actually buy health insurance because how do you catch them?? How do you enforce it?? The IRS is going to come to your door or deduct money from your refund (LOL - I have not had a refund in over 30 years)? The result was that costs went up for those who complied with the law and purchased health insurance.
I am not against managed care although I am not sure how it will be implemented by the Senate bill. Medicare and Medicaid are both forms of managed care, as are HMOs, and god knows my own insurance plan could not be any more restrictive and still pay anything.

Have you read the entire bill? Do you know what's in it and understand how it will effect you? Do you research, read and attempt to educate yourself or do you blindly follow the party line and regurgitate the spin the hacks shovel out?

Wow....and you wonder why JJPers well....you know

The dkos article states that what you are freaking out about on page 16 is explained on page 72. But, since you conveniently dismiss the article because its from Daily Kos you get to wallow in the blissful ignorance you're famous for. Save your pootbutt bluster for someone who isn't smart enough to see through it. Or take your musty ass back to Stormfront.org with the rest of your wingnut militia.

<Have you read the entire bill?>

It's only a 1,000 page legal document so I guess it will only take me 30-40 minutes right? And I should have no problems understanding how it fits into the context of existing healthcare and insurance regulation right?


Are you a lawyer with experience in the health care and insurance fields? If not I suggest your read the dkos writeup that was linked above. It makes it rather clear why "reading the entire bill" is a dicey business. There are huge opportunties for misinformation and you don't have a great record so far about weeding that out.

"IBD jumped the gun and got a lot of folks riled up, including me."

Bullshit. I find it impossible to believe that IBD innocently "jumped the gun" when the information that debunks the lie they put out was only three pages ahead of the information they intentionally misconstrued. And who are you to talk about other people following the party line? I don't care which side it comes from, if I see a headline proclaiming something as radical as "Private Health Insurance Will Be Outlawed", I'm going to want to at least try to find out whether or not it's true, no matter what the subject is, before I go repeating it as gospel. You didn't do that. You followed the party linne.

If I was such a staunch ideologue would I be engaging in further research and asking progressives why they are so supportive of the bill?

I have no party line other than I am against an expanded government that limits my freedoms, and in this that is access to the best health care I can afford. I am also against a bill that claims to save money while the CBO tells us that health care costs to the federal government will INCREASE with this bill and that deficit spending is unsustainable.

You can believe what you choose about IBD, but if it gets Congress to slow down and address this issue in a pragmatic, responsible way...great.

I see the article as akin to pulling the emergency break on a runaway train. Better to stop or slow it down than have it crash at full speed.

In other words, whether or not it's a lie is of no concern to you, right?

No, I don't think you're a staunch ideologue... CONSERV1...LOL.

ONOEZ!!! WE'RE ON A COLLISION COURSE WITH AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE AND THE BRAKES HAVE FAILED! WE IZ FUCKED!!!!

ROFL

Michael Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, raised nine children, but the last came of legal age when she was 54. Raising her late son's three children, ages 7 to 12, now, at age 79, would be another challenge unto itself, and it's one that nearly 3 million American families tackle -- although they're not necessarily the families you might think they are.

Many grandmas know what lies ahead for Katherine Jackson

"People's idea about grandparents and grandchildren living together was of an elderly African-American woman living in the inner city with no spouse present," says Kenneth Bryson, director of the National Center on Grandfamilies, in Washington. "That's actually very uncommon."

It's true that African-American children are more likely to live with grandparents than white children are, but of all grandparent households, fewer than one-third are African-American. More than 40 percent of grandparent households are white, according to the Census Bureau's most recent American Community Survey, and the remainder are other races and ethnicities.

White, black or purple, the challenges confronting grandparents who, like Mrs. Jackson, unexpectedly find themselves with young children to raise can be daunting.

<snip>

After jumping during the 1990s, the number of grandparent-headed households grew by fewer than 1 million over the past decade. One in 4 such households lives below the poverty line, compared with 17 percent for the general population. Grandparent-headed families make up 2.7 percent of all US households.

---

This morning or through the weekend CIT will declare bankruptcy and likely to be liquidated. CIT is a financial institution that does a specialized form of lending. They are a "factor". A factor basically lends money to a business to buy inventory much like GE Capital. Unlike GE Capital the inventory is rarely products made by CIT. CIT will lend you money to buy clothes, provide cash against your accounts receivable, etc. The loans are short term in nature. Much of CIT's business is done on a relationship basis.

CIT business is up against the wall because many businesses are doing so poorly they cannot pay CIT back. If CIT fails the ripple effect on the economy is going to be tremendous because it will take years for others to come in a create a business relation. A regular bank cannot come in and loan because they have no clue what the business CIT does is. The consequence is many more small businesses are going to fail. With that failure will be more debt, unemployment and people on the government dole. This situtation will be directly the fault of President's Obama's economic recovery plan as it relates to financial institutions.

The mantra has been save the large institutions to stabilize the system(a correct thing) and they will provide credit to the economy to get it up and going again. This has been a complete failure in providing credit. The large institutions one receive loans and backstop by the government to do whatever business they want. Ignoring GoldmanSachs and Morgan Stanley, investment banks and looking at Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan earning reports they have made money on their trading desks not on credit cards, mortgages or business loans: JPM http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsst...
BAC http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsst...

Two, the money they have received through TARP and other plans is being paid back but the upside warrants value is being contested as are other debts to us(the taxpayers whom kept them in business)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarch...

Three, the loan guarantees put smaller communiy banks at a disadavantage as any good client is being subsidized to do business w/ a large bank because of these loans and exceptions: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/05/how-the-ba...

Yet a company like CIT which operates on Main Street, if you will, is being denied funds to continue what they do which is loan to small businesses. Add in the failure to help main street by changing the bankruptcy code to allow loan cram downs on primary residences(the mortgage on your home) you have a continued policy of buggerying the taxpayer at the expense of large financial institutions.

The failure of CIT will mean that the economy is no longer the one inherited from the years of President Bush policies of nonfeasance. It is President Obama's now.

Solution: under TARP law forbid any financial instution from speculating in currency, bonds, CDO's and futures for their own account(this will make Goldman Sachs a private company and others like it a private companies again not stock companies. Raise margins on the exchanges for future products to 50% especially those they directly effect the economy like oil, gasoline, heating oil and natural gas. Declare force majuere on Credit Deriative Swaps written by any US financial insitution that is under federal regulatory control(insurance companies have to be forbidden to do it as they are currently state regulated) and forbid the overseas arm of writing. Revisit the bankruptcy code and allow cram down of first mortgages on primary residences(I realize people feel there neighbor often spent more than they should/could/did and they are irresponsible. The problem is everytime a home goes into foreclosure there are few neighborhoods where this doesn't have a negative effect; loss of tax revenue to the local government authority, a diminishment of the value of your home, in short a death spiral to value.) An examination of credit companies scoring policies(we have seen at the simplest the effect of the closing of a credit card on your credit score-we won't get into what the companies really send as your credit score) to protect good creditors from being forced to pay more.

Why not add, get rid of FICO and MICO as a solution?

I heard about this the other day. But I guess what can you expect when you don't know anything about the economy and surround yourself with a bunch of people beholden to Wall Street who "tell" you what the economy is all about.

Why is that ESPN brotha on MSNBC this morning talking about the banks, just stating general obvious shit loudly like he actually knows what he's talking about, and everyone is just sitting there nodding their heads like he's saying something important!! MY God! All those black professionals in NYC and they put this idiot on tv every damn day!

OMG.....are you telling me that got Stephen A up already on MSNBC? Damn its not even 10am yet....

Yes, he's on there talking loud and saying nothing, about banking and finance. Sitting next to people who actually worked on Wall Street and he's speaking in the most general terms and everyone is sitting there acting like he's actually saying something profound! He doesn't even know what he's talking about! They put him in every damn segment, from style, to medical, to world news, to legislative, and he talks some general shit he Wikied before he went on air, and all those white people smile and nod like the man is a genius! It's sickening.

Questions Sotomayor Still Must Address
Patricia M. Wald
Thursday, July 16, 2009; 3:07 PM

During the questioning of Sonia Sotomayor, I was reminded of my law school nights cramming for exams: no matter how diligently you read the cases and learned treatises about what the "law" is, you were never prepared for the essay questions about how you would decide the case or how a future court might decide a slightly different case. Sotomayor's polite but persistent refusal to allow even a glimpse into her judicial orientation (she would say she had none, though her speeches suggest she has at least thought about it) is understandable in view of the fate of prior nominees who were more forthcoming -- in my tenure on the D.C. Circuit five colleagues were nominated; three made it, two did not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Nine dead as bombers target Jakarta hotels
Posted Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:26am AEST
Updated 8 hours 30 minutes ago

Coordinated bomb attacks have hit two luxury hotels in the Indonesian capital Jakarta, killing at least nine people, including foreigners, and injuring dozens more.

The first explosion is reported to have happened at the JW Marriott hotel in central Jakarta just a few blocks away from the Australian embassy at about 8.00am this morning (local time). A terrorist attack at the same Marriott Hotel in 2003 killed 12 people and left 150 injured.

Later there was another explosion on the first floor of the Ritz Carlton hotel, directly opposite, with windows being blown out of the hotel's restaurant.

"There were explosions heard from two separate places, one the JW Marriott, the other in the Ritz Carlton. We are still trying to check because right now we are still helping the victims," South Jakarta Police Chief Firman Santyabudi told Indonesian Metro TV.

Police and health ministry officials confirmed the death toll and also confirmed that the explosions were caused by "high explosive bombs". The health ministry said 48 people had been seriously injured.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/17/2...

Next RW talking point: ObamaCare outlaws private insurance
Now that HR3200 has been formally introduced in the House, the right wing is going through it with a fine-tooth comb looking for lines they can take out of context to scare people with. They believe they've found it in the parts of the law that move regulation of private health insurance from McCarran-Ferguson to ERISA: "ObamaCare outlaws private health insurance!"
The deal is that the actual bill is over 1,000 pages long, it is written in legalese rather than English, and it is set in the middle of a large array of other legislation that it must work around without destroying. This necessarily means that it does some nifty tricks to side-step some of the implications. For example: For employer-provided health insurance meeting requirements for deduction as health care coverage under federal law, federal regulation already applies via ERISA. But private plans (those individually purchased) are regulated by the states under the provisions of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, which places private health insurance under state control.


So the question is how to enforce the mandates upon insurers -- the must-issue and the flat-rate-pool mandates -- without overturning McCarran-Ferguson. Neither Congress nor the majority of states want the Federal government to be in the business of regulating insurance in general. Simply amending McCarran-Ferguson to exclude health insurance as a state-regulated class doesn't work either, because it's not all health insurance that Congress wants to regulate, just primary health insurance. Supplemental policies are of supreme disinterest to Congress and they're quite happy to let the states continue regulating those. Besides, insurers could raise some legal actions if Congress tried to regulate already-issued insurance that was issued under McCarran-Ferguson.


So the solution that the wonk assigned the task of making this happen arrived at was to create a new ERISA-eligible group for all future private insurance to be offered through -- the Health Insurance Exchange. This starts on page 72 of the bill. Since it is an ERISA-eligible group, it can be regulated through ERISA without touching McCarran-Ferguson in general. But then comes the task of how to make all private insurance be offered via the Exchange. And the solution the wonk devised was to outlaw the issue of new private policies that were Exchange-eligible, which is done on page 16, which would force all new private policies to be issued via the ERISA-regulated Exchange rather than via the state-regulated McCarran-Ferguson private market. In short, it's a work-around for McCarran-Ferguson which avoids the necessity to have to actually change McCarran-Ferguson -- existing private insurance policies can still be regulated by the states, it's just that new private insurance that meets primary insurance requirements must go thru the Exchange where it can be regulated under federal ERISA rules instead. And wingnut heads explode upon reaching page 16, and they erupt shouting "ObamaCare outlaws private insurance!" without ever getting to page 72.


This points to a major problem wingnuts have with a 1000+ page bill -- you have to read the whole darn thing to know exactly how page 16 relates to page 72, you have to know the legal background of health insurance beforehand to understand how the pieces relate to the other major pieces of federal regulation like ERISA and McCarran-Ferguson, you have to have basic literacy in the legalese involved in this massive piece of wonkery, and wingnuts lack the patience, background, or the reading comprehension to do this. The bill does not outlaw private insurance, of course. It just shifts its issuance to the Exchange so it can be regulated under ERISA rather than McCarran-Ferguson. But to someone who suffers from legal illiteracy and a case of the paranoids, taking page 16 out of context means you arrive at the erroneous conclusion "ObamaCare outlaws private insurance!", which was boldly published in a national forum without the slightest attempt to validate the conclusion with, well, somebody who knows even the tiniest bit about health insurance regulation and how the new bill interacts with the current regulatory framework.
So it goes. In wingnut land, ignorance is strength. And on that basis, they must be mighty dadburned strong, doncha think?!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/16/754...

It does not outlaw private insurance but it does make sure that all newly offered private insurance complies with the new guidelines. It may be the case that the new guidelines are so onerous that private plans can not see their way to a rational business strategy.

Under the bills being considered right now, the exchange will be limited to the uninsured, the self-employed and small businesses. Maybe it will be expanded over time. Maybe not. In addition, it is barricaded by what's called a "firewall." The firewall essentially bars individuals from entering the exchange so long as their employers offer them a basic level of health-care coverage.

Will companies strip down the plans, to provide only basic care? This will limit the choice of employees who will no longer see employers provide "Cadillac" plans. So, if we like our employer provided plan but the employer chooses a more basic plan than what we now enjoy, we are stuck. No choice.

Doesn't this threaten the premise that we can keep our existing plan if we like it?

It is clear to me that this bill can be VASTLY IMPROVED. We need time to thoroughly examine and debate the bill and gain input from both parties.

So what's the rush? Trying to push something through too fast makes people suspicious and allows the issue to be subjected to political demagoguery on both sides of the aisle.

Wouldn't it be best to take time and come up with a bipartisan bill that makes sense to average Americans instead of leaving it vulnerable to manipulation and obfuscation by wonks and partisans?

The WH has done a poor job in selling this plan by making it first and foremost about cutting costs.

More devastating than the charge that the bill will sink the private insurance companies, is the fact that the CBO is telling us that this bill does nothing to cut costs, but actually INCREASES them!

You're busted. All you did yesterday was post how it outlawed private health insurance.

Agreed. My bad. I jumped the gun. But does that mean we stop the debate? No. I want to educate myself and find out what is truly up with this bill.

I want to know 'what's in it for me'. I want to know if I can truly keep the plan I enjoy.

You should be asking yourself those same questions as well.

Why not work together to find the best solution for a pressing problem instead of trying to discredit me and advocate the ramming through of COSTLY legislation that no one has had time to read, let alone understand.

Have we learned nothing from the 'stimulus' debate? We rushed to pass an 'emergency' bill that has little to no short-term effect as promised by the WH at great cost to the taxpayers. Do Dems really want to make the same mistake twice.

There is a saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

You're the one whom needs to look before you leap. You're such an ideologue I have seen you twist yourself in knots trying to defend the indefensible. you have to stop fooling yourself.

So why do you for wholeheartedly support this bill? Why is it so great that it is worth the Trillion dollar price tag?

A soundbite from Bernie Sanders isn't good enough for me.

"It does not outlaw private insurance but it does..."

From yesterday:

"It is clear from the healthcare reform bill the House has drafted that private insurance will be eliminated."

Yeah Rob, he's busted...again. This is the sort of thing I was talking about when I mentioned his dishonesty.

Again, I admit it. I quoted the IBD column. But please see my comment to Rob above.

What is the main goal of health care reform? Coverage for all or cost-cutting?

Basic coverage for all citizens should be first and foremost. Everyone gets a basic plan, and then those that want to pay more or maintain healthier lifestyles can opt for an even better plan.

The government could establish a single, reasonably generous public-option plan and leave the gold plating to private insurers. Doing so would allow the government to take a more egalitarian approach and at the same time would turn over to private insurers a decent-sized potential market for nonbasic health care.

Take the responsibility for providing health care away from employers and put it on individuals. You must be insured under the basic plan. Citizens who cannot pay will be subsidized at this basic level.

Those who maintain a healthy lifestyle could receive credits toward 'gold-plated' options, thereby creating incentives for Americans to adopt healthier behaviors. If you smoke, you will have basic coverage, but if you want a better plan you can pay out of pocket or change your behavior.

Someone needs to send this article to Pat BuKKKlannan and the rest of the Bitter White Boy Squad who constantly whine about affirmative action:

Peter Schmidt
At the elite colleges - dim white kids

By Peter Schmidt | September 28, 2007

AUTUMN AND a new academic year are upon us, which means that selective colleges are engaged in the annual ritual of singing the praises of their new freshman classes.

Surf the websites of such institutions and you will find press releases boasting that they have increased their black and Hispanic enrollments, admitted bumper crops of National Merit scholars or became the destination of choice for hordes of high school valedictorians. Many are bragging about the large share of applicants they rejected, as a way of conveying to the world just how popular and selective they are.

What they almost never say is that many of the applicants who were rejected were far more qualified than those accepted. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, it was not the black and Hispanic beneficiaries of affirmative action, but the rich white kids with cash and connections who elbowed most of the worthier applicants aside.

Researchers with access to closely guarded college admissions data have found that, on the whole, about 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at America's highly selective colleges are white teens who failed to meet their institutions' minimum admissions standards.

Five years ago, two researchers working for the Educational Testing Service, Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose, took the academic profiles of students admitted into 146 colleges in the top two tiers of Barron's college guide and matched them up against the institutions' advertised requirements in terms of high school grade point average, SAT or ACT scores, letters of recommendation, and records of involvement in extracurricular activities. White students who failed to make the grade on all counts were nearly twice as prevalent on such campuses as black and Hispanic students who received an admissions break based on their ethnicity or race.

Who are these mediocre white students getting into institutions such as Harvard, Wellesley, Notre Dame, Duke, and the University of Virginia? A sizable number are recruited athletes who, research has shown, will perform worse on average than other students with similar academic profiles, mainly as a result of the demands their coaches will place on them.

A larger share, however, are students who gained admission through their ties to people the institution wanted to keep happy, with alumni, donors, faculty members, administrators, and politicians topping the list.

Applicants who stood no chance of gaining admission without connections are only the most blatant beneficiaries of such admissions preferences. Except perhaps at the very summit of the applicant pile - that lofty place occupied by young people too brilliant for anyone in their right mind to turn down - colleges routinely favor those who have connections over those who don't. While some applicants gain admission by legitimately beating out their peers, many others get into exclusive colleges the same way people get into trendy night clubs, by knowing the management or flashing cash at the person manning the velvet rope.

Leaders at many selective colleges say they have no choice but to instruct their admissions offices to reward those who financially support their institutions, because keeping donors happy is the only way they can keep the place afloat. They also say that the money they take in through such admissions preferences helps them provide financial aid to students in need.

But many of the colleges granting such preferences are already well-financed, with huge endowments. And, in many cases, little of the money they take in goes toward serving the less-advantaged.

A few years ago, The Chronicle of Higher Education looked at colleges with more than $500 million in their endowments and found that most served disproportionately few students from families with incomes low enough to qualify for federal Pell Grants. A separate study of flagship state universities conducted by the Education Trust found that those universities' enrollments of Pell Grant recipients had been shrinking, even as the number of students qualifying for such grants had gone up.

Just 40 percent of the financial aid money being distributed by public colleges is going to students with documented financial need. Most such money is being used to offer merit-based scholarships or tuition discounts to potential recruits who can enhance a college's reputation, or appear likely to cover the rest of their tuition tab and to donate down the road.

Given such trends, is it any wonder that young people from the wealthiest fourth of society are about 25 times as likely as those from the bottom fourth to enroll in a selective college, or that, over the past two decades, the middle class has been steadily getting squeezed out of such institutions by those with more money?

A degree from a selective college can open many doors for a talented young person from a humble background. But rather than promoting social mobility, our nation's selective colleges appear to be thwarting it, by turning away applicants who have excelled given their circumstances and offering second chances to wealthy and connected young people who have squandered many of the advantages life has offered them.

When social mobility goes away, at least two dangerous things can happen. The privileged class that produces most of our nation's leaders can become complacent enough to foster mediocrity, and less-fortunate segments of our society can become resigned to the notion that hard work will not get them anywhere.

Given the challenges our nation faces, shouldn't its citizens be at least a little worried that the most selective public universities - state flagships - dominate the annual Princeton Review rankings of the nation's best party schools, as measured largely by drug and alcohol consumption and time spent skipping class and ditching the books?

Should Harvard, which annually turns away about 2,000 valedictorians and has an endowment of nearly $35 billion, be in the business of wasting its academic offerings on some students admitted on the basis of pedigree?

Peter Schmidt is a deputy editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education and author of "Color and Money: How Rich White Kids Are Winning the War Over College Affirmative Action."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opin...

I have his book and my own personal anecdote. As a student, I freely admit my test scores weren't glowing. However, I was the student in the tutoring center those kids from the best schools in the country went to for help. I watched their faces drain of color when I asked them simple questions about the 8-page paper they wrote. I sat in amazement while one, a college senior, thought each point in his paper had to be in a single paragraph even if the paragraph was two pages long.

I'm also the one they went to when they needed tutoring in Japanese language. Me, the poor little ghetto Black girl. I saw how ill-prepared many of them were yet still made their way into the best colleges so Pat Buchanan is full of hateful garbage.

It was amazing to hear Buchanan speak of how basically schools give away grades but somehow White children aren't the beneficiaries of such a system. That their standardized testing scores on multiple choice questions should be the decisive factor and not the critical analysis skills that so many of them lack.

Fact is, there are more White students who aren't capable in higher education than Blacks. We don't get the chance at the same rate as they do to fail or succeed. But they won't admit that. Buchanan wants to only compare those minorities who fall short to the true best of the best while leaving out (simply not claiming) the under performing, failing Whites.

Whites who need a bad guy for why they didn't get into their dream college always look at minorities. Why'? Because they automatically assume/ believe/ accept that the other White students belong there. It was your Black butt who took THEIR spot. As if they were entitled to it in the first place.

And equally as crazy is the notion that, even if one is admitted based on affirmative action they don't have to do any work to stay in. Thats some George Bush privilege right there. A person of color would be on probation at the end of the 1st semester and out by the end of freshman year.

I don't have many white students, but there is a presumption that they will be intellectually superior, even the ones named Billy Ray and Junior. They are automatically put into Pre-AP & AP classes. It would be shocking if it wasn't so common place. And they act like they are so bored at all times because of their vastly superior intellect, but that is complete subterfuge to conceal their mediocracy. I have also had several who were quirky and seemed to have something like Asperger Syndrome, yet still condidered to be "superior" while requiring modifications.

Sorry, mediocrity.

this kind of analysis means nothing to the pat buchannan's of the world, because in his mind there just doesn't exist a scenario in which a minority could be better qualified than a white person, he just can't fathom it. and unfortunately it usually means nothing to otherwise less bigoted white people, what i like to call "enlightened racists;" it's not said as explicitly, but subconsciously they can't really imagine it either.
it's the reason that you can have an impeccably qualified minority get a job, and have someone say "it's good to see more diversity, and they're obviously very qualified but i don't believe in affirmative action hiring," and not see anything problematic with the conclusions they've just drawn.
what about their resume puts them in that erroneously defined category? absolutely nothing, except their skin color. it's presumed that a minority just can't be objectively qualified for a position, their brownness is somehow inherently what puts them at the top of the pile not their qualifications. while some other candidate's whiteness always comes with the presumption that they are objectively qualified for any position they get, it's simply never a question. until people are able to recognize that assumption, this debate will continue to go nowhere.

Business as usual will verification.

This is so utterly offensive - Pat Buchanan needs to be punched.....HARD

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001941/

MSNBC would never allow Farrakhan, Sharpton, and Reverend Jerimiah Wright on the airwaves and let them have a free for all....... We'd have a nice lil race war.

This idea that she made Yale Law Review because of affirmative action was the most asinine.

He has forgone his Republican role and gone off the deep edge to pure racist. MSNBC might as well give the same platform to the KKK. They can have this racist on air everyday but can't find an African American to host his or her own show in the 10 pm hour.

How long will MSNBC get a pass for letting this racist spew his hate speech? This isn't about giving a voice to a conservative.

Yes. It is utterly offensive. And hopefully, it will be the GOP's marketing strategy.

I don't know if wishing this as a marketing strategy is a good idea. There are still far too many impoverished whites who believe that POC are the reason that they remain poor. Just look at the backlash against undocumented workers. We can see them as crazy but they see so-called American jobs being stolen.

Good point, womanist. As we all know, words are powerful and can incite a peaceful movement or a violent backlash. Folks like Pat pose a real danger to the physical well-being of POC.

and there are still far too many middle class whites who believe that POC are the reason that they didn't get the job they wanted, or get into the school of their choice, or think that all their taxes go to paying for things that benefit lazy minorities and not folks like them.
we might like to think that this kind of rhetoric should be abhorrent to any decent thinking person but let's be honest, there are more people than you think who agree with it on at least some level.
what seems like a horrible marketing strategy to you, is one that has worked for the GOP and others many many times before.

Didn't Bakke apply to 11 different schools and was rejected? Yet he decided it HAD to be affirmative action ruining his chances for approval and not the fact that his grades were bad. I mean, if I'd been rejected after 5 schools, I would have to re-think what was I was doing.

What you wrote is the God's truth. Michelle Bachmmann's district is just full of folks with that mindset. I hate to say it, but they are my neighbors.

See, WRB, it's a good thing you're around.

Who else would those white folks have to blame for their stupidity.

lmao!! u CRAzY!! Spirit...that's why I come here...for my own sanity..AND to know how to RETORT those...numbnutnitwits

and my daily prayer:
Lord, help me to endure my blessings.

Good Morning.Its Roots Friday.Enjoy
Cocoa Tea - Good Life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I3Cuv4cI2M

Yeah, Good Life.

I recently blogged about media bias in Nashville. The Tennessean did a media drive by on a local black college that my sons attend. My blog sparked much debate and now the publisher is meeting with the university to discuss how it has covered the university. Who said a blog and tweets can not be effective?
http://genmaspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/07/media-d...

Great job!

Excellent job!

Genmaspeaks, great work!

Congrats, Genma, on bringing attention to this subject and actually getting something done! It is nice to see that a blog can make a difference.