(Karen)I can't seem to find anything that gives me a clear understanding of the difference between careless and dangerous, except the maximum sentence and that careless only recently became a charge that brought you before the courts. The new charge is causing death by careless driving - Careless Driving has always been an offence. The trouble with Dangerous Driving as a charge is that you have to prove that the driver was not only driving dangerously but drove in that way and was reckless of the danger. In the case of the driver Sue mentioned, I think the problem was that they could not be certain that he was actually looking at the laptop when he struck the other car. What would have been the reaction if he had been eating an apple, pressing a button on his CD player, being distracted by a rear seat passenger? These are things we all do all the time - his was an extreme example of that behaviour.

Thank you, Allison. Yes, I knew that 'careless' has always existed, only that since 2008 there was a change in the law so that it could be adjudicated. From the vague articles, I guessed it had to be a matter of no witnesses or other evidence to prove he was looking at the laptop at precisely that time.

Thanks for clarifying, Allison. All the same though, what kind of message is this sentence giving out!

The stimulus bill has created jobs before even being signed! Look at all the people getting jobs just to determine recipients and hand out the money. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/stimulus_states States face competing priorities for stimulus cash By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer Mon Feb 16, 9:18 am ET NEW YORK – It may sound like a nice problem for states — figuring out how to spend the billions in infrastructure funding they'll receive as part of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan. But the task is more complicated than it seems, as state officials try to set priorities while managing competing pressures from communities, watchdog groups and federal regulators over how the money is allocated. Under the plan Obama is expected to sign into law early this week, states will divide $27 billion to build and repair roads and bridges. That is less than half the $64 billion in projects states told the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials late last year that they had ready to go. The law also requires that half the money be spent on projects that have been vetted by the federal government and deemed "ready to go" in 120 days, as a way to jolt the economy and create jobs. That means state officials are under pressure to make decisions quickly on which projects to fund and which to bypass. While many states have made their lists of "ready-to-go" infrastructure projects available online for public review, others have resisted, in part because the limited stimulus funding means only a fraction of the projects will receive money. Watchdog groups say it's likely that state officials fear angering constituents if a project appears on a wish list and then is struck from the final allocation. "There will be huge internal battles in states about priorities," said Phineas Baxandall of the Public Interest Research Group. In California, for example, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office rejected a request by The Associated Press for a detailed list of "ready-to-go" projects. The AP sought the information under the California Public Records Act, but the governor's office last week said the documents were internal drafts, adding "disclosure would chill critical communications to and within the Governor's Office, thereby harming the public interest." The sheer volume of money directed toward state projects has fueled calls for transparency, with journalists, interest groups and others demanding a full accounting of which projects receive the funding, which are rejected, and why. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick addressed that sentiment last week when he named a local real estate developer to oversee bidding for the stimulus money. Patrick also set up a new Web site with information on every project that receives the money. "I don't want to send a mistaken impression there are pet projects," Patrick said. The governor appeared with the state's attorney general, Martha Coakley, who also will help track the stimulus funds. "An ounce of prevention in handling the money is worth a pound of grand jury investigations and civil litigation down the road," Coakley said. Mindful of the accelerated timetable they face, states are moving quickly to develop mechanisms for identifying priority projects and disbursing funding for them. Some have created oversight commissions while others are leaving decisions to state transit officials. Some are required by law to involve state legislators, while legislators in states that don't require their participation are pressing to have input. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, has retained a former U.S. diplomat as a temporary, unpaid "infrastructure czar." But the Republican-controlled Senate, concerned that Strickland could try to push stimulus funding through the state's Controlling Board instead of through the legislature, has drawn up a separate "spending blueprint" for the federal stimulus money. Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, a Republican, has hired two former state finance officials to oversee the stimulus money. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, tapped a former attorney general to manage the funds, while Wisconsin Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle established a state Office of Recovery and Reinvestment led by the president of a local electric utility and a vice chancellor of the University of Wisconsin. In Virginia, Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, is taking a grass-roots approach, setting up a Web site seeking input from residents, local governments and community groups as to how the money should be spent. Nearly 600 suggestions poured in on the first day alone, state officials said. In Colorado, 11 transportation commissioners will determine which projects to fund, in part based on recommendations from local governments and city planners around the state. No vote of the legislature is needed to spend the money. Legislative input also is not required in Maine, but state lawmakers have pressed for involvement and Democratic Gov. John Baldacci says he will seek their guidance. He plans to present a plan for spending the stimulus so that legislative leaders can review it. Montana's constitution requires that the state legislature appropriate all spending. Lawmakers there are trying to determine whether to go through the normal appropriations process or accelerate it in some way. The state's governor, Democrat Brian Schweitzer, told the AP that lawmakers are likely to make changes to the $3 billion list of projects the state has identified as eligible for the stimulus money. Gov. M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut, a Republican, created a working group of municipal officials, business leaders, legislators and state agencies to determine the final list of projects. "The task before us now, " said Rell, "is to identify the projects that will do the most to get people back to work, get our economy moving again and position us for success when the national business climate improves." ___ Associated Press writers Michael Tarm, Tom Verdin, Steve LeBlanc, Phillip Rawls, Norma Love, Scott Bauer, Susan Haigh, Jean McNair, Colleen Slevin, Glenn Adams, Matt Gouras and Stephen Majors contributed to this report.

Thought this might be of interest since some of us use this site to look for Colin's stuff. I don't remember if I read that they'd been sued, too. Pirate Bay copyright test case begins in Sweden (Reuters) * Posted on Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:36PM EST STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - A copyright test case involving one of the world's biggest free file-sharing websites that could help music and film companies recoup millions of dollars in lost revenues started on Monday in Stockholm. Four men linked to The Pirate Bay were charged early last year by a Swedish prosecutor with conspiracy to break copyright law and related offences. Companies including Warner Bros., MGM, Columbia Pictures, 20th Century Fox Films, Sony BMG, Universal and EMI are also asking for damages of more than 100 million crowns ($12 million) to cover lost revenues. Sites like The Pirate Bay allow people to download songs, movies and computer games without paying and the trial is being closely watched to see to what extent the entertainment industry can protect copyright against Internet users. "This is not a political trial, it's not about shutting down a people's library and it's not a trial that wants to prohibit file sharing as a technique," said Monique Wadsted, a lawyer representing Warner Brothers, Columbia, MGM and other major media and computer games companies. "It's a trial regarding four individuals that have conducted a big commercial business making money out of others file sharing ... copyright protected works." The accused -- Peter Sunde, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Fredrik Neij and Carl Lundstrom -- denied the charges. The group that controls The Pirate Bay, launched in 2003, says that since no copyrighted material is stored on its servers and no exchange of files actually takes place there, they cannot be held responsible for what material is being exchanged. The prosecution says that by financing, programing and administering the site, the four men promoted the infringement of property rights by the site's users. The trial could last as long as three weeks and the four accused face up to two years in jail if convicted. (Reporting by Simon Johnson; Editing by Louise Ireland) http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090216/tc_nm/us_sweden_piratebay

(Dorine)I know someone who's from B'ham area with a similar last name as that family (one letter off, though has relatives with the last name that spelling). Hope they weren't related somehow. I sincerely hope not too, Dorine.

Tracking the stimulus should be a priority job. I guess that's the fuss the conservatives were making. Maybe there is too much money allocated? We'll know soon enough if the job market changes. In Italy a man went to trial for murdering his wife (chopping her with a knife), he always maintained his innocence and although there was proof against him, it was not enough to convince the jury. He was declared innocent. A few months after he was freed, he walked into a police station and confessed to the murder to unburden himself, but because he had been declared innocent he could not be re-tried, he knew that. Such is the law. :-(

I don't like this: Hillary's Incredible Shrinking Cabinet Role Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is finding that her job description is dissolving under her feet, leaving her with only a vestige of the power she must have thought she acquired when she signed on to be President Obama�s chief Cabinet officer. Since her designation: # Vice President Joe Biden has moved vigorously to stake out foreign policy as his turf. His visit to Afghanistan, right before the inauguration, could not but send a signal to Clinton that he would conduct foreign policy in the new administration, leaving her in a backup role. # Richard Holbrooke, the former Balkan negotiator and U.N. ambassador, has been named special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He insisted on direct access to the president, a privilege he was denied during much of the Clinton years. # Former Sen. George Mitchell, D-Maine, negotiator of the Irish Peace Accords, was appointed to be the administration�s point man on Arab-Israeli negotiations. # Samantha Powers, Obama�s former campaign aide, who once called Hillary Clinton a �monster,� has been appointed to the National Security Council as director of �multilateral affairs.� # Gen. James L. Jones, Obama�s new national security adviser, has announced an expansion of the membership and role of the security council. He pledges to eliminate �back channels� to the president and wants to grow the council�s role to accommodate the �dramatically different� challenges of the current world situation. # Susan Rice, Obama�s new United Nations ambassador, insisted upon and got Cabinet rank for her portfolio, and she presumably also will have the same kind of access to Obama that she had as his chief foreign policy adviser during the campaign. So where does all this leave Secretary of State Clinton? While sympathy for Mrs. Clinton is outside the normal fare of these columns, one cannot help but feel that she is surrounded by people who are, at best, strangers and, at worst, enemies. The competition that historically has occupied secretaries of State and national security advisers seems poised to ratchet up to a new level in this administration. Hillary�s essential problem is that she is an outsider in the current mix. She was the adversary in the campaign, and Rice and Powers � at the very least � know it well, having helped to run the campaign that dethroned her. Can they � and she � be devoid of bitterness or at least of normal human trepidation? Not very likely. The fact is that the power of the secretary of State is not statutory, nor does it flow from the prestige of the post�s occupant. Former Gen. Al Haig, once supreme commander of NATO and chief of staff to President Nixon, found that out when he was undercut as secretary by the White House troika of Mike Deaver, James Baker, and Ed Meese. Bill Rogers, Eisenhower�s attorney general and Nixon�s California confidant, found himself on the outs from the moment he became secretary of State, with Henry Kissinger soaking up all the power through his direct access to Nixon as national security adviser. The power of the secretary of State flows directly from the president. But Hillary does not have the inside track with Obama. Rice and Powers, close advisers in the campaign, and Gen. Jones, whose office is in the White House all may have superior access. Holbrooke and Mitchell will have more immediate information about the world�s trouble spots. So what is Hillary�s mandate? Of what is she secretary of State? If you take the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan out of the equation, what is left? One would have to assume that the old North Korea hands in the government would monopolize that theater of action. What, precisely, is it that Hillary is to do? The question lingers. And for this she gave up a Senate seat? � 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

"Hillary's Incredible Shrinking Cabinet Role " (Moon)I don't like this: Too early to tell. Moon, she's no 'shrinking violet"; I'm sure she'll have her say. After all, she's the head of a big department. Now Joe.....I wouldn't be so sure he'll be that influential. At the prez's press conference, I thought Joe was dismissed as an "annoyance". Even the reporters had a good laugh.

I agree with Evelyn re Hillary. There has been so much damage and there are so many things complex things that need addressed foreign policywise around the world pretty much immediately and she's only one person. I thought it wise to have special envoys go where she can't be at the same time. The thought that she was being slighted never entered my mind.

(Moon)We'll know soon enough if the job market changes. Most of the "experts" say things are going to get worse before they get better. IMO, we haven't bottomed out yet. The market is down another 3% today so far, and more companies are announcing big layoffs. Saw Hillary on the tube this moring. She's in Japan, then heading to China, Korea and Indonesia. Sadly, there are enough trouble spots in the world to go around. And you're using "Newsmax" as a source again, Moon, they are sowers of discontent. Did anyone see the SNL skit last week on the Republican leadership meeting? Dan Ackroyd played John Boehner. Hysterically funny.

(Mari) Did anyone see the SNL skit last week on the Republican leadership meeting? Dan Ackroyd played John Boehner. Hysterically funny. Yep, although I'd reserve hysterically funny for a sketch much later with Alex Baldwin playing a video game with his two sons. While not political, it was outrageously funny.

(Mari)And you're using "Newsmax" as a source again, Moon, they are sowers of discontent. It's opinion...just like Paul Krugman at the NYT; who often makes his appearance on this topic;-)

It's opinion...just like Paul Krugman at the NYT; who often makes his appearance on this topic;-) Well, unfortunately, Moon provided neither the authors with it, nor a link to it, so I went to the site and Evelyn is right about this piece, it is a commentary piece by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. Considering it's partially from Dick Morris, Mari's comment is still appropriate IMO. I don't know if he's a pundit especially for them, or they bought the rights to run a syndicated column from him. Here's his archive at Newsmax: http://www.newsmax.com/morris/archive/

Makes no difference....it's still an opinion. Why is it that when a liberal website is quoted here, the information is taken as doctrine and when a conservative commentary is made, the author is a buffoon. *no winkie*

I didn't say he was a buffoon. I conveyed that sources should be considered when posting opinion pieces.

Because on more than one occasion, conservative pieces (at least in the more recent past) have been shown to be less than....accurate..... in what they were conveying. I'm not saying that liberal pieces are completely accurate all the time, but I see much less evidence that it occurs and overall tend to be more fact based. Spin is one thing, overt misrepresentation and completely twisting of facts is another. There are several websites devoted to uncovering and pointing out errors, misrepresentations and lies in the media for all to see. For those who wish to see.

There are several websites devoted to uncovering and pointing out errors, misrepresentations and lies in the media for all to see. Pointing out errors on *both* sides.

You know, in this day and age, it behooves us all, no matter our ideology, to do a little due diligence when reading anything out there at all. Especially in these times and this day and age. Taking anything at face value anymore should be considered passe. As I was saying... *cough* Politico�s David Rogers Catches Republicans Lying About High-Speed Rail, Won�t Call Them Liars http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/02/politicos_david_rogers_catches_republicans_lying_about_high_speed_rail_wont_call_them_liars.php And hope that Burris hightails it back to IL in a hurry. What an idiot.

(Dorine)but I see much less evidence that it occurs and overall tend to be more fact based. As usual...V. objective observation here....;-(((( I conveyed that sources should be considered when posting opinion pieces. Like no one ever gives an opinion w/o a source.

Dorine: You know, in this day and age, it behooves us all, no matter our ideology, to do a little due diligence when reading anything out there at all. Sure does...often I flip thru cable news services - Skjy Australia, CNN, BBC, Asian News...all reporting on the same subject matter, yet all with a different angle...different opinion...different agenda to shove down our gullible throats... Call me a cynic...but I NEVER accept anything at face value...no matter what side of the fence one sits, everyone has their own interest at stake...and will write, read and interpret things accordingly...or perhaps I'm just getting old ....'creak'...

Like no one ever gives an opinion w/o a source. The point is that Dick Morris is an avowed Hillary hater, and would love to take her down. Look at that list of detrimental articles he's written about her at the link Dorine posted. He's the one who said he'd leave the country (oui should be so lucky) if she won the presidency. And it was Dick Morris who first cried "racist" when Bill Clinton likened O's campaign to Jesse Jackson's. So when an article by Dick Morris is posted that belittles her 3 weeks into the job and basically says she has no influence and a friend cites it and says it concerns her . . . well I'm not going to pretend that this is coming from an objective source.

He didn't belittle her..., but I'm not going to take his side since I 'm not a fan of his either. But what he said is basically true...there are so many 'czars " in that West Wing that they must be falling over each other. There's a Czar for the Middle East, there's a Czar for Israel etc. Formerly, the Sec of State was in charge...and I'm sure she will. But that's not the point I wish to make... it's not an individual I'm talking about and you know it. There have been many degrogatory articles and just opinions here made on President Bush, and on my candidates...that did not give a source. To the great hilarity of all concerned, I might add. But if there is just one article or opinion on yourcandidate...different story. I have not criticized Mr Obama or his wife here...though I remember many remarks about Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin..to great hilarity. To say nothing of Laura Bush However, you will not discourage me. I will continue to give me views and if you don't like them...you can always scroll. As I often do.

(Evelyn) However, you will not discourage me. I will continue to give me views I would be highly disappointed if you didn't continue. Really. Whether I agree with you on things or not. If seemingly reliable information is found by you that contradicts anything posted, by all means, post it. And that goes for anyone. In regards to things I've posted in the past few weeks as a retort to news or other items posted, is it my fault that Dick Cheney was lying through his teeth about released Guantanamo detainees. Or that Rush Limbaugh and that other woman were perpetrating misperceptions about the healthcare bill on the largely unsuspecting public? And the same for the bit above? Really, I'm thankful for the people who actually track this stuff for me, and us. And I'm thankful for Google. ;-) As you saw recently, I'm not above criticizing someone on "my" side, ie. Reid and Pelosi. And as I've said repeatedly, I'll be the first one to criticize O should I feel it's warranted. Actually I have already. If not here, then in conversations. Just because all those envoys are deployed around the world instead of Hillary, as you say, the Sec of State is usually in charge, and guess what, they have phones (and Skype!) to keep in contact. Nothing is saying she's not directing the show. But, she's one person for a multitude of immediate needs and can't be physically everywhere at once. They have their reasons. Only time will tell her real role and influence.

Well here's an opinion man that tried some facts in a mainstream publication. Does he get "A" for effort? If someone finds this is incorrect, let us know. George Will makes up facts in his column denying global warming.� Feb 16th, 2009 at 3:35 pm In the Washington Post yesterday, conservative columnist George Will chastised Energy Secretary Stephen Chu for �doomsaying� about global warming, arguing that concerns about climate change are just �eco-pessimism.� As evidence to support his point, Will claimed that �according to the University of Illinois� Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.� But, as TPMmuckraker notes, the Arctic Climate Research Center (ACRC) quickly disputed Will�s claim: We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined. In its statement, the ACRC added that �It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.� Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt told TPMmuckraker that �he�d try to respond to questions about the editing process later today.� They have yet to hear back from him. Update: Slamming Will's column, Ezra Klein wrote, "Sadly, our political pundits have outsourced their scientific research to an intern charged with a superficial skim of Newsweek covers." He added, "I look forward to [Will's] correction." http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/16/will-global-warming/

I am not petulant and I will not go away...however, be assured.. "My courage always rises with any attempt to intimidate me" ;-)

(Evelyn)I have not criticized Mr Obama or his wife here...though I remember many remarks about Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin..to great hilarity. To say nothing of Laura Bush Hey, I'm the one who's always been complimentary of Laura B. I don't recall ever saying anything negative about Cindy McC either. Palin is different; she was running for office which makes her fair game. And you should feel free to criticize the big O. I will, when he does something I don't like. "My courage always rises with any attempt to intimidate me" LOL, and that is part of your charm!:-)

Speaking of St. Palin........tax dodger? http://www.adn.com/palin/story/693695.html

"My courage always rises with any attempt to intimidate me" Courtesy of Jane Austen. I pinched that from Lizzie. Speaking of St. Palin........tax dodger? That might even qualify her to join the cabinet.

Why not? She can't be worse than Burris I bet.

I went to an extremely interesting meeting last night of people wanting to participate in the grassroots of healthcare reform. An interestingly diverse group with people from several countries. We watched a DVD of a Frontline PBS special on healthcare systems around the world, which I thought was so timely in light of the conversation here last week. I'll post more at another time. It was interesting too, in how both the show and the comments from people begat a huge range of questions, in my mind anyway.

Since we were talking about Arlen Spector and his vote for the stimulus package, here's a good article on him and his vote: "It's very politically perilous. The right wing is out for my scalp." His switchboard flooded. "One of my senior Republican colleagues told me, 'I'm proud of you.' I asked why didn't he vote for it. 'I might get a primary fight.' Know what? I'm getting a primary fight. There are a lot of Republicans who were glad to see the agreement reached without their fingerprints." http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/39701907.html

Good on him. And I loved his point that relates to an item I posted a while back, where McCain was upset with the bill as it was and was going to present his own. Judging by Specter's comments, it doesn't appear he had a "viable" one or one at all. Did you read all the comments? In-ter-es-ting.

He's too old to run again anyway. Let some younger guy in.

(Evelyn) He's too old to run again anyway. Isn't Sen. Byrd like....90? Not that he isn't too old perhaps. Just sayin'.

We were discussing student grades before, though not exactly in this context. But has it really ever been that different? I don't think in my lifetime. But maybe it is worse. It's been too long since I've been in school. Though I can't think I really ever subscribed to the "A" for effort rule. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/education/18college.html?em=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1235020470-0wDCAibziC3Ww4EMhRQ2CQ

Mr. Greenwood said. �What else is there really than the effort that you put in?� Uh....the result? Professor Brower said professors at Wisconsin emphasized that students must �read for knowledge and write with the goal of exploring ideas.� Way too vague for these kids. ;-) On another note, anybody here watch Lie to Me, a series on Fox with Tim Roth. The best part of the show is the examples they show of public figures' facial expressions, which indicate various emotions, including lying. The people used to demonstrate go across the board and you might see some very familiar moments. I recommend this show highly.

Talk about rude awakenings when these kids get into the real world with jobs with no company loyalty to its employees, favoritism and paying as little as possible for a great deal of work. I wanted to see that Tim Roth show. Maybe I can catch it online somewhere. Fox does that with their shows I think. Or some of them anyway maybe.

Back when I was in college, professors told you how grading was done. I don't recall a percentage for "showing up" or "reading the material." It was all done on the basis of one's exams (midterm and final) and any written submissions or papers one had to write. Professors could care less if one showed up or "tried." When did all of that change? FYI, they have used Bill Clinton's "I have never had sex with..." bit several times. Condie Rice's facial expressions have also been used numerous times. Many very current, which is why I put this discussion on this board and not on Drool, because of its political nature.

(Karen)Professors could care less if one showed up or "tried." When did all of that change? I don't think it has, judging by my son's courses. At the start of every course (that I'm aware of), he's gotten a clear list of what comprises the final grade, and the percentage weight that each has: midterm, final, quizzes, term papers, group projects, any other written assignments, oral presentations, etc. I don't recall ever seeing "showing up for class" or "trying hard" on any list.;-) If any prof is not giving their students a clear list upfront, then they are leaving themselves open for the kids who think that they should get extra points just for showing up. These are the same kids who probably got trophies in Little League even though they came in last place because godferbid society doesn't "recognize" their "achievements." The only exception I'd allow for would be if a kid is truly on the cusp of two grades, i.e., a C+ or B-. If he/she showed up, participated in class, etc., I'd probably give them the higher grade.

(Mari) These are the same kids who probably got trophies in Little League even though they came in last place because godferbid society doesn't "recognize" their "achievements." Or is guaranteed a part in the school play because everyone who trys out gets in. In my day, you had to have talent and my school was large enough that it could be extremely difficult to get in.

LOl Insurrection on the Chicago Board of Trade Let's hear it for Rick Santelli.Yeah, let's vote on the housing plan. I heard it this morning on CNBC...but on Hardball tonight he said his Blackberry is frozen now with emails...guess on which side??? ...and I don't think all those guys at the monitors are millionaires either as one comment stated. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

That shouting was annoying. But..... I don't think the mortgage bailout should include those who took out mortgages plainly and obviously unaffordable at the time and were approved by mortgage lenders who obviously knew it. In that respect, he's right, you're encouraging bad behavior. If their circumstances are no different now than when they took out the loan, they need to sell it themselves (unlikely), give up the house/condo or make some other arrangements. Rent a more affordable apt or home and rent out the home they can't afford that someone else may be able to. But certainly help those whose financial status changed because of changes in employment or significant adjustments to pensions or other income earning means.

Despicable. BofA is on my shitlist at the moment for pulling crap like this with fees on my VISA card and turning it into a cash advance no less! Thank God I don't actually bank with them. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090219/ap_on_re_us/bank_fees_jobless_benefits

By appointing a special envoy, is Hillary undercutting herself? ;-) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090220/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/as_clinton_koreas

Re: mortgages, this is what I'm talkin' about... http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/02/19/2009-02-19_city_torn_on_mortgage_plan_debate_rages_.html If I didn't know this was real, I'd have thought this a foreign film script if someone told me about it. It's reality show fodder, that's for sure. http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/02/17/2009-02-17_spurned_mistress_drives_chinese_business.html

Thank you Bill: Clinton to Obama: Talk optimistically on economy WASHINGTON � It used to be gospel in the nation's power center: Presidents didn't talk publicly about what the markets were doing. The notion was that anything a president said on this subject could be too easily misinterpreted, sending Wall Street into a dive. Now, former President Clinton says he thinks President Barack Obama should talk more optimistically about the prospects that the nation will recover from its current deep economic woes. Clinton said he wants Obama to assure the people that America will surmount this problem. But at the same time, the former president said in an interview broadcast Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America" that "I like the fact that he didn't come in and give us a bunch of happy talk." He also said he believes "you will see some good economic news form the stimulus fairly soon." For his part, Obama has said he thinks the country will get past the recession, but that it will be a long slog. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090220/ap_on_go_pr_wh/clinton_obama_economy C'mon Barack,time to inflate that hope balloon . We need some cheering-up.

(Dorine)"That shouting was annoying. LOL. That's Rick Santelli. That's my crowd at CNBC. I say look at the original mortgage application.. See who lied. See if anyone checked the income tax returns. Don't just give the $$$$ out willy-nilly across the board. Uh, uh... being naive won't cut it. In yesterday's local paper there was a blurb asking citizens what the mortgage package would do for them. One Generation X-er said the tax credit of $7500 was nice, but he wished the government would have given him a down payment instead. Some people think they *deserve* it just by taking up space.

See who lied. See if anyone checked the income tax returns. Don't just give the $$$$ out willy-nilly across the board. Exactly. A former WAMU mortgage rep said she and others were pressured (forced?) to write loans they knew were obviously bad. Can't remember now if she did, then felt bad about it and quit, or didn't do it and was fired/not fired, or did it then lost her job when they went under. That woman in the NY Daily News article whose payment went from $3500 to $5000 got an adjustable rate mortgage apparently, because that's what people do who get larger loans (perhaps than their income will allow). I know someone with a big one, interest only too from what I understand. That woman and her 3 kids could either try to qualify for a fixed rate loan, though unlikely now, sell it, find another roommate, and/or rent out the whole thing and rent herself a decent sized place for literally half to a third less than what she's paying for that house. Problem is, landlords do credit checks too and if her credit is shot, then her options are more limited, but I don't think enough to warrant needing a shelter yet.

I saw Santelli last night; they re-ran his rant. I honestly don't know what the right thing to do is, and he didn't offer any solutions that I recall.;-) Maybe the bank bailout money will take time to work (it's only been since December, right?) but right now I don't see the banks loosening up their credit, which is partly what is stalling the markets. I think they are waiting for the government (um, that would be you and me) to take all their bad loans off their books. Or nationalize:-( C'mon Barack,time to inflate that hope balloon. I think he's caught in between; he needed to be dire to get the stimulus stuff passed, but now maybe the markets could use some happy talk. I do salute him for laying it on the line, depressing though that is. But jeez, we are below the 6-year low already this morning, down another 2% since yesterday's close.

Remember the inaugural poem? Few apparently do By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer 45 mins ago NEW YORK � Millions watched Elizabeth Alexander read a poem last month at President Barack Obama's inauguration. But few, so far, have wanted to buy it. Nielsen BookScan, which tracks about 75 percent of sales, says Alexander's "Praise Song for the Day: A Poem for Barack Obama's Presidential Inauguration" has sold just 6,000 copies so far. The poem was published Feb. 6 as a paperback by Graywolf Press with an announced first printing of 100,000 copies. The inaugural reading by Alexander, a highly regarded poet, apparently lacked the spark of predecessor Maya Angelou, whose "On the Pulse of the Morning" � read at President Bill Clinton's 1993 inaugural � became a million seller. Alexander was just the fourth inaugural poet, following Robert Frost, Angelou and Miller Williams. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090220/ap_en_ot/inaugural_poem

(Dorine) and I don't think all those guys at the monitors are millionaires either as one comment stated. A seat on the CBOT ain't cheap, although I think the Merc is more. However, I'm sure the price has gone down considerably. (Dorine) bank fees jobless benefits As I skim the article, this is not much different from the fees they would've paid if they cashed a check at a currency exchange. These are used by people without bank accounts, who have always had to pay fees to cash checks, get money orders, etc.

That was Evelyn for your first reference. ;-) No, it's more like getting fee'd for using their ATM's when you bank elsewhere. I was thinking the unemployment debit card was filtered through those participating banks which if you used the debit card at one of those banks (or the one yours goes through), it would be like using their own debit card. I've never heard of debit cards for unemployment benefits. BofA does fee you to death though even if you have some kind of account with them. WAMU didn't do that and so far Chase doesn't seem to.

Sorry, Do, re misquote. From the article: They also provide at least one way to tap the money at no charge, such as using a single free withdrawal to get all the cash at once from a bank teller. But the banks benefit from human nature, as people end up treating the cards like all the other plastic in their wallets. [...] The U.S. Department of Labor allows the fees as long as states create a way for recipients to get their money for free, spokeswoman Suzy Bohnert said. "Beyond that, the individual decides how to manage his drawdowns using the debit card," she said in an e-mail.

such as using a single free withdrawal to get all the cash at once from a bank teller. Yes, because I want to walk around NYC with $400 cash in my wallet. ;-)

Then you go put in your bank. Like I said, this is analogous to cashing govt checks at a currency exchange. Bank income is heavily dependant on fees. There is a way to avoid them, but people want the convenience. Convenience has always had a price.

people want the convenience. Ooh, don't get me started on banks charging for the convenience of paying online....or through the phone on an automated system rather than having to utilize a teller or actual person on the other line, as well as GMAC charging different amounts to pay online depending on which method you pay (credit card/electronic check/debit). A pet peeve of mine. I have no problem with some other fees mind you.

I'm only referring to these unemployment comp debit cards. As far as I'm concerned this issue is entirely bogus. If you have a way of getting your money out for free, then you have no basis for complaining. As for walking around with money, people with bank accounts obviously can deposit it. [Are there not, like three banks, on every single block these days?] People without bank accounts have always had to walk around with the money and have lived by paying cash all their lives.

Well, if they can get direct deposit, I don't understand why they just don't do that and have to deal with a debit card at all. Maybe not all states have that. There's something missing from that system or story. These people can't possibly be that dumb. Being the eternal optimist in pessimist's clothing that is. ;-)

Some interesting commentson the Santelli rant. This one is fairly typical: Where was the outrage when we dropped 800 billion to bail out the banks? http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/rick-santelli-tea-party-time/?ref=opinion

(Mari)Or nationalize:-( Gaaagh...don't use that "N" word. The market went ballistic when Greenspan said it. Regs, ok. "Where was the outrage when we dropped 800 billion to bail out the banks?" Actually, Rick was furious then too...with Ken Lewis and the dude from Lehman, Fuld(?) who lied to everybody. But this one is my favorite of the comments. "Rick Santelli is heir to this legacy laced with racist overtones..." "Note the promo before the rant in the video link at CNBC. CNBC has an upcoming special entitled The Rise of America�s New Black Overclass. Fear mongering, it�s worked before so let�s try it again. It�s back to the 1970s for the GOP and their rabid white ethnics" You *know* they were going to get Rick Santelli with a racial smear. Probably Bob Pisani, too. *shaking head* I don't even know if Rick's a Republican. I know Mark Haynes & Erin Burnett on "Squawk Box" & Power Lunch are Dems.

Market down today : 100 pts. I do think if he threw the market a bone it would have something to cheer about. Who in their right mind wants to invest...what is he going to do with dividends? Tax 20%,? 28% ?35%? Corporate tax? Down? Up? Energy : windfall profits tax??? Too many ??????? out there. I know, I know...he just came in the door. But meanwhile....

I am one of those suckers that is hanging on with the Market. Can't bare to look at it. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton named a special envoy for North Korea on Friday but warned the communist nation that ties with the United States will not improve unless it stops threatening South Korea. I think it's a good idea. It's after her visit, so she knows what might be accomplished there. I just wish she would get to the Middle East. Why is John Kerry there instead?

Moving over from Firthology, for further discussion. (LindaMc)..if a mere housewife like me could see what was on the horizon, why didnt the governments and bankers etc... Where do I start! denial, greed, wrecklessnes.......................

Here's O's press secretary responding to Santelli: http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=12139329&ch=4226716&src=news

(Moon)Why is John Kerry there instead? He went to Gaza ... to talk to Hamas????

And here's Santelli's response to O's Press Sec "Santelli took the critique in stride, saying Gibbs had hardly offered tough words. "I think this is terrific that this has been opened up to national debate," Santelli said in an MSNBC interview shortly after Gibbs' daily briefing wrapped up. "I think it's wonderful he invited to me to the White House. I'm really not big on decaf, though. I think I'd prefer tea" http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96FI8300&show_article=1 Meanwhile CNBC is making the most of the publicity... One can join the 'Santelli's Tea Party' by adding your comments. Apparently the rant was heard around the world. The rant clip has the highest viewership ever on CBBC http://www.cnbc.com/id/29283701 Reminds me of Sidney's Lumet's movie "Network"...remember? "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not goin to take it anymore"

Moon, I wouldn't be too concerned about Hillary's diluted influence in foreign affairs. On CR last night Richard Holbrook (just retured from Afghanistan)said he was in constant communication with "Secretary Clinton" throughout his trip. (BTW I like her new "do"; softer, not as severe as when she was campaigning)

(Evelyn)Reminds me of Sidney's Lumet's movie "Network"...remember? "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not goin to take it anymore" I do remember it, I loved that film. But I'm not sure why Rick Santelli or anyone else for that matter should be "mad as hell" at this point. The details of the housing plan will be announced on March 4 (or 5?). Until then, people like him are just shooting their mouths off and becoming youtube stars on the strength of their ability to shout louder than anyone else. It's the new American past-time: yell first, think later (or maybe never):-( I watch the Today Show in the morning and today they had on their regular real estate contributor. She understood the details and felt many more people would be helped by the plan than what what the Santellis are saying because he simply hasn't taken the time to read the plan. And this lady has no ax to grind. A guy who wrote in saying "I did everything right, I'm not facing foreclosure but it's tough to pay the mortgage, no one wants to give me a refinance, etc." She said hang in there until the details are announced in March because there's going to be refinancing provisions for anyone whose mortgage exceeds 31% of income. You know, this housing rescue plan does not affect me (thank my lucky stars), so I really shouldn't care. But I'm getting damned tired of these media types who don't do their basic homework before spouting off an opinion. And I have no sympathy for people from the stock exchange trading floor bitching that they have to bail out people who were "irresponsible." LOL! Kettle, meet pot.

It's the new American past-time: Pssst...Always has been;-) And ,this is C.N.B.C. Not Fox Business News;-) The details of the housing plan will be announced on March 4 (or 5?). So why announce it now? Is this the new Tim Geithner routine..."I'll give you the details later" Serves them right. Poor PR, I say.

(Mari) But I'm getting damned tired of these media types who don't do their basic homework before spouting off an opinion. Not doing their due diligence, eh? ;-) Actually, neither do some members of congress, by their own admission.

(Moon) I am one of those suckers that is hanging on with the Market. Can't bare to look at it. Neither can I, but I'd hate to characterize myself as a sucker. We, the average investor, have no choice. Added to that, making effective changes in one's retirement/401(k) plans is like trying to turn the Titanic on a dime. Unless you want to cement in those losses by selling, then you have to sit tight and pray.

We were talking about high end fashions in the current economy.... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123517153386836823.html

(Moon)Why is John Kerry there instead? (Evelyn), He went to Gaza ... to talk to Hamas???? See even you are surprised. O sent him. Moon, I wouldn't be too concerned about Hillary's diluted influence in foreign affairs. (Evelyn), On CR last night Richard Holbrook (just retured from Afghanistan)said he was in constant communication with "Secretary Clinton" throughout his trip. Of course, what is he to say? Believe me, Clinton is the one doing the calling. O sent him too. This smells of not trusting her. (Mari) But I'm getting damned tired of these media types who don't do their basic homework before spouting off an opinion. It's a habit they started during the primary O lovefest, or don't you remember? It's hard to find unbiased media. The reason I post from Newsmax here is to give the other POV.

I'm sure this will get "misinterpreted" somewhere that it only took a few months for Obama's handouts, etc to cause the deficit to balloon and look how "low" it was under Bush. Watch. Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise By JACKIE CALMES Published: February 19, 2009 WASHINGTON � For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials. The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion. The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses. But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy from using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax. [....] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html

Moon)Why is John Kerry there instead? (Evelyn), He went to Gaza ... to talk to Hamas???? (Moon)See even you are surprised. O sent him. LOL.I forgot the winkie, Moon. I don't think he did. ...or at least I didn't do the due diligence Oh my...Love that term, BTW...didn't hear of it til this year. Sounds like Mrs Bennett: "Do you have any due diligence to do this afternoon?"

(Dorine)I'm sure this will get "misinterpreted" somewhere that it only took a few months for Obama's handouts, etc to cause the deficit to balloon and look how "low" it was under Bush. Watch. He's the Prez now...it's his deficit, like it or not. His recession and bailout too.:-D

Closing

closing

Yeaaaaay. Nice to see the market closing over 200 pts. Thank you, Ben. Shows what a few kind words and little optimism will do:-)))))

YEEESSSS!!! (if true) Officials: US troops to leave Iraq by August 2010 By PAMELA HESS and ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer 34 mins ago WASHINGTON � The United States plans to withdraw most of its troops from Iraq by August 2010, 19 months after President Barack Obama's inauguration, according to administration officials. The withdrawal plan would fulfill one of Obama's central campaign pledges, albeit a little more slowly than he promised. He said he would withdraw troops within 16 months, roughly one brigade a month from the time of his inauguration. The officials said they expect Obama to make the announcement this week. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not been made public. The U.S. military will leave behind a residual force, between 30,000 and 50,000 troops, to continue advising and training Iraqi security forces, the two officials said. Also staying beyond the 19 months will be intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, including unmanned aircraft, they said. A further withdrawal will take place before December 2011, the period by which the U.S. agreed with Iraq to remove all American troops. A senior White House official said Tuesday that Obama is at least a day away from making a final decision. He further said an announcement on Wednesday was unlikely, but he said that Obama could discuss Iraq during a trip to North Carolina on Friday. About 142,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, roughly 14 brigades, about 11,000 above the total in Iraq when President George W. Bush announced in January 2007 that he would "surge" the force to put down the insurgency. He sent an additional 21,000 combat troops to Baghdad and Anbar province. Although the number of combat brigades has dropped from 20 to 14, the U.S. has increased the number of logistical and other support troops. A brigade is usually about 3,000 to 5,000 troops. Obama's campaign promise to withdraw troops in 16 months was based on a military estimate on what would be an orderly pace of removing troops, given the logistical difficulties of removing so many people and tons of equipment, a U.S. military official said. The 19-month strategy is a compromise between commanders and advisers who are worried that security gains could backslide in Iraq and those who think the bulk of U.S. combat work is long since done. The White House considered at least two other options to withdraw combat forces � one that followed Obama's 16-month timeline and one that stretched withdrawal over 23 months, the AP reported earlier this month. Some U.S. commanders have spoken more optimistically in recent months about prospects for reducing the force. Maj. Gen. Michael Oates, who commands U.S. forces in central and southern Iraq, told reporters earlier this month that he believed the gains in stability in that area were now irreversible. According to officials, Obama had requested a range of options from his top military advisers, including one that would have withdrawn troops in 16 months. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had recently forwarded withdrawal alternatives to the White House for Obama's consideration. In addition to the U.S. troops to be withdrawn, there is a sizable cadre of contractors who provide services to them who would pack their bags as well. There were 148,050 defense contractor personnel working in Iraq as of December, 39,262 of them U.S. citizens. There are more than 200 U.S. military installations in Iraq. According to Army officials interviewed by the Government Accountability Office, it can take up to two months to shut down small outposts that hold up to 300 troops. Larger entrenched facilities, like Balad Air Base, could take up to 18 months to close, according to the GAO. As of Monday, at least 4,250 members of the U.S. military had died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. More than 31,000 have been injured. Congress has approved more than $657 billion so far for the Iraq war, according to a report last year from the Congressional Research Service. ___ Associated Press writers Robert Burns, Lolita C. Baldor, Steven Hurst, Anne Flaherty, Richard Lardner and Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/iraq_withdrawal

He has to, if he's going to send 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. For now.... Where else are they going to come from?

Afghanistan was always were we should have been in mass force. I hope to see it happen. Now for Iraq... the sooner we leave the sooner the Sunnis and Shiites can have their Civil(if only they knew the meaning of the word), War. Those poor Kurds.

FACT CHECK: Obama glosses over complex realities By CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writers WASHINGTON � President Barack Obama's assurance Tuesday that his mortgage-relief plan will only benefit deserving homeowners appears to be a stretch. Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman expect some of that money will go to people who should have known better than to buy that huge house. The president glossed over a number of complex realities in delivering his speech to Congress and a nation hungry for economic salvation. A look at some of his assertions: OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values." THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money does not go to home buyers who used bad judgment, it hasn't announced it. Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it's important to save some of those people for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed. "I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed." Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford. "I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio. ___ OBAMA: "We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade." THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don't mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House. Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly won't be 10 years from now. ___ OBAMA: "Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day." THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn't only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation. ___ OBAMA: "In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them. We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas." THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That's all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama's proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress. Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past. ___ OBAMA: "In the last eight years, (health insurance) premiums have grown four times faster than wages. And in each of these years, 1 million more Americans have lost their health insurance" THE FACTS: The number of uninsured grew by 7 million from 2000 to 2007, the latest year for which Census figures are available, meaning Obama's claim would be true if had been talking about averages. But it's not true that the number of uninsured rose each year by 1 million. In 2007, the ranks of the uninsured dropped by 1.3 million from the year before, to 45.7 million. ___ OBAMA: "Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years." THE FACTS: While the president's stimulus package includes billions in aids for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone. In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent. If Obama is to achieve his much more ambitious goal, Congress would need to mandate it. That is the thrust of an energy bill that is expected to be introduced in coming weeks. ___ OBAMA: "Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs." THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers. The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error." Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation. The estimates are based on economic assumptions of how many jobs would be lost without the stimulus. ___ OBAMA: "And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it." THE FACTS: According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany's Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline, in 1885 or 1886. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable. ___ Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, giving the Republican response to Obama's speech, ran off the tracks with one claim about the stimulus plan. JINDAL: The plan is "larded with wasteful spending," including "$8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a magnetic levitation line from Las Vegas to Disneyland." THE FACTS: Jindal was echoing an often-used Republican complaint that is an oversimplification. GOP budget hawks have dubbed the train "the Sin Express," and say it will soak up much of the rail money. But that's not a done deal. Competition for the mass transit money is just starting, and backers of other projects across the nation � including one through Obama's home state of Illinois � think they have at least an equally good chance. ___ Associated Press writers Tom Raum, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Dina Cappiello contributed to this story. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fact_check_obama

"Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation. " He sings a different song almost nightly on the Larry Kudlow show. " Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford. "I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio." :-((((( So much for accountability ...to say nothing of responsibility. I'm surprised the AP is the source of this news clip...they have consistently been such cheerleaders of the president. ___

shoot...

(Moon)Afghanistan was always were we should have been in mass force. I hope to see it happen. I wish he'd give Richard Holbrooke a chance a diplomacy first (Gawd! I'm getting to sound like "The Nation") I just don't want a repeat of "Charlie Wilson's War".Remember? The generals asked for 30-40K troops and he's sending 17K. We're doing it "on the cheap"again. I hope the president listens to his good friend Colin Powell.

Is there a fact check for Jindal's claim to be turning down the federal stimulus money offered to his state? From what I've seen, he's only turning down the $98 million for temporary unemployment comp. That's a pittance relative to the total headed for Louisiana: $3.8 billion.

He didn't say he was turning it all down. Only the programs that the state can't sustain in 3 yrs .

So, turning down 2.5% (and that is all it is) is hardly anything he should be holding up as an example of his fiscal prudence.

No one is against job creation with infrastructure. That's what this bill is supposed to do . He just doesn't want to raise taxes later on to meet expenses that would occur once this 2.5% expires. Makes sense to me. At least it shows he read the bill;-D

Mountain meet molehill

Huh?

Wall St Journal The 2% Illusion Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough. "The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. Unwinding the U.S. commitment in Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire can't possibly pay for his agenda. Taxes on the not-so-rich will need to rise as well." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=djemEditorialPage You don't have to answer this. I'm inured. Bottom line: Go ahead and spend everything before the gov't takes it all. Buy the Jimmy Choos, eat at that Michellin *** restaurant,take that trip...go ahead. Uncle Sam is gonna take care of you when it's gone.;-P What the hell! :-((((((

I liked what one of the PA congressmen said yesterday. "The people who put us into this ditch are now the same ones complaining about the size of the dump truck." Bobby Jindal is running for president, and what he says is politically motivated. Plus, there's a provision in the law that says a state's legislature can overrule a governor's refusal of funds, so it's real easy being a refusenik when you know it will have no consequences. Hey, Ahh-nuld said he'll gladly take any money that Bobby doesn't want. And I think it's rich that Bobby is tsk tsking federal expenditures when his state has been the recipient of federal funds/taxpayer generosity to the nth degree in recent years. Also, his bit about how his parents paid the hospital bill out of their own pockets when he was born was a slap at people with no health coverage. When my mother in law passed away, we came across the hospital bill from my husband's birth. He's not *that* much older than BJ, and the bill for a 10-day hospital stay was $125, including $15 for nursery care of the baby! I know people made a lot less then, but there is no way that the average family's income has kept proportionate pace with the cost of health care. Paying that bill out of one's own pocket would be ruinous for most family's today. One of the conservative columnists really blasted Jindal's rebuttal on Jim Lehrer's show, saying it made the R party seem more out of touch than ever. And he thought it was pathetic that they didn't come up with a member of Congress to do the rebuttal.

Go ahead, make my day. You can go on quoting Barney Frank and Chris Dodd too. Like they're lily-clean...*snort* Sooner or later they're goin to run out of people to blame. Like I said, I'm inured.

Almost forgot: "Comrades"!!

(Evelyn) Sooner or later they're goin to run out of people to blame My turn.....huh?

Evelyn, do you agree the country is basically in the shithole, to put it bluntly? If you don't like the ideas being proposed to raise money, because money must be raised, how do you see it happening, without raising some taxes, probably across the board (by at the least letting some tax cuts expire)? The top 1% have had significantly disproportional tax cuts and allowances vs others in the past 8 years. I'll take it that in Clinton's era, you considered taxes were disproportionately high? But he left the country in much better shape than the way he found it. That must've been a bad thing somehow. Do you agree with the concept of any kind of universal medical care/single payer system healthcare. I'll guess you have good insurance. If you think everyone should be eligible for at least basic healthcare, how do you see it being funded? (Me) If you think everyone should be eligible for at least basic healthcare, how do you see it being funded? I, myself, first think they need to stop paying subsidies for managed Medicare/Medicaid plans that cost more to administer than straight Medicare/Medicaid and redirect it to the straight plans or to some kind of basic care for those that aren't covered at all. Ironically the managed plans cost more to administer, yet generally allow less services or reimburse at a lower rate. Guess where that extra $$ goes.

"However, while 69% of Republicans and 59% of unaffiliated voters say tax cuts help the economy, only 43% of Democrats agree. Seventy percent (70%) of GOP voters and 54% of unaffiliateds say tax increases hurt the economy, a view shared by only 22% of Democrats. The plurality of Democrats (40%) say tax increases are good for the economy. A majority of investors favor tax cuts and oppose tax increases. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/51_say_tax_hike_on_those_earning_over_250_000_is_a_good_move I find that people who are looking for a hand-out are in favor of taxing anybody, except themselves. All they're looking for is their income tax refund. Which I think should be cancelled if the country is in such a "shithole" as you colorfully put it. I oppose any single payer gov't run healthcare system (national health) like they have in Sweden;-) Though I do believe there has to be some reform in the system I always said I liked most of Hill's plan. Comrades!!! spend, spend, spend!!