(Evelyn) I find that people who are looking for a hand-out are in favor of taxing anybody, except themselves. All those businesses/corporations who have benefited and continue to benefit from tax cuts/loopholes come to mind. Or gotten TARP $$. Which would include anyone who got a Bush tax cut I'd presume. Is that who you were referring to? "However, while 69% of Republicans and 59% of unaffiliated voters say tax cuts help the economy Judging by all the tax cuts given out in the past 2-3 years at least, that obviously did no good, it shows these people have barely a clue. And what about those lovely surplus checks, that helped all of a couple of months tops. Big deal. Gives what amounts to a statistical bump up. As noted here before, most people would/did horde the $$ or pay bills, which does nothing for the economy. But then again O said he planned to give tax cuts to the middle and lower class, so go figure. And I can't say I completely agree with the tax incentives for buying cars/houses, etc. Tax incentives for developing or buying solar energy and some other alternative energy sources is something I do support if it would give those options a boost as they in the long run will help us save energy and hopefully $$. Seventy percent (70%) of GOP voters and 54% of unaffiliateds say tax increases hurt the economy How would anyone know if we haven't had any in the past 8 years? All they're looking for is their income tax refund. I'll be looking in the mailbox for mine soon. I'm not necessarily against getting less of a refund, or really none at all if the $$ is not wasted as it has been with the Iraq War and/or put toward something more useful. Sure I love to get a refund, but if I don't get it, I don't get it. I just plan accordingly. I understand there's going to be a certain amount of waste of my money in government spending, just as there is in the private sector. I'm not sure you answered my question of where you think we'd should get more $$ or how you think we can get out of the hole. I'm not sure that presenting quotes of the obvious really answers anything. A majority of investors favor tax cuts and oppose tax increases. I can only LOL at the striking obviousness of this, which really renders it meaningless to me in the scope of this discussion. I'm not saying I completely agree with the spend, spend, spend ideology, but then again, I'm a follower to some degree of the "gotta spend money to make money" point of view, too. And certainly, finance isn't my forte. (Evelyn) I always said I liked most of Hill's plan. Refresh my memory if you would, I don't remember what her plan was.

(Evelyn) I always said I liked most of Hill's plan. (Dorine)Refresh my memory if you would, I don't remember what her plan was. You're kidding. I don't have the time. Google it. But speaking of Hill..... I guess now that she's not the senator from NY she doesn't have to play nice to the Jewish community.... Jewish Leaders Blast Clinton Over Israel Criticism Zuckerman, Lawmakers, Local Jews Say Secretary Of State Not The Hillary Clinton They Used To Know Hillary Pressuring Israel To Speed Up Aid To Gaza http://wcbstv.com/national/hillary.clinton.israel.2.945238.html Maybe your tax refund check can go towards the $900 M to rebuild Gaza. I bet "The Nation" will like that. Stay tuned; I'll let you know;-)

With regard to Obama's budget, he asked for the world basically knowing he wasn't going to get it and it would be torn down some. He addressed that concept at his first press conference after working on the stim bill. He said he learned not to go in with exactly what he wanted, but to go in with more because the Congress would counter him no matter what he presented. It's the same game one plays with salary negotiations. Each side goes in with a number (one highball and the other lowball) and comes to a compromise in the middle (hopefully).

Bolds are mine. Bush a four-letter word at CPAC By ANDY BARR | 2/28/09 9:44 AM EST Conservatives aren�t sure who�s the Republican presidential frontrunner in 2012. They disagree over how sharply to attack President Barack Obama and on the question of whether a back-to-basics approach is the path back to majority. But if there�s one thing those attending the annual Conservative Political Action Conference this week agree on, it is this: They don�t want another George W. Bush. Few come out right out and say it, but they don�t have to. There�s no nostalgia for the past eight years, no tributes to Bush and no sessions dedicated to exploring his presidency. Indeed, for a president who publicly embraced conservative principles, there is little evidence that the movement returns the sentiment. When the subject of the 43rd president has come up at CPAC�where he spoke each year of his presidency�it�s usually been in an unflattering context. Conservative icon Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker, railed against the �Bush-Obama continuity in economic policy� and the �Bush-Obama big spending program� in a speech Friday. "We had big spending under Bush and now we have big spending under Obama," Gingrich said. "And so now we have two failures." He wasn�t the only high-profile conservative taking shots at the former president. �I wish the president would have laid [a stimulus package] out before he left office, so that in September, October, November, December, there would have been a stimulus plan,� former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) said Friday in an interview with POLITICO, adding that the GOP has yet to come up with unified policy proposals or a clear, positive voice. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.), like Romney an unsuccessful candidate for president in 2008, pointed to the Bush administration�s failed response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. �You know what kind of conservatives we need most? Competent conservatives,� Huckabee said in a speech Thursday. �It�s when we lose our competence, that Americans lose their confidence.� �We�re no longer Reagan�s shining city on a hill, we are the ruined city by the sea,� he added. While the 9,000 registered attendants represented the top turnout in the conference�s history, the series of speeches, panels, meeting, dinners and parties was dominated by questions about the direction of the conservative movement and the Republican Party in the post-Bush era. The absence of two of the party�s most recognizable conservatives, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) and Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.), only added to the uncertainty since CPAC has traditionally served as an early proving ground for GOP presidential contenders and their ideas. �We are fast becoming a regional party, not a national party,� Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned the conference. �There is another name for a regional party, it�s a minority party.� Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) added that �the American people walked away from us, so now we�re in the wilderness.� While it was obvious that Bush failed to leave a model of governance for conservatives to follow, it was equally clear that there are competing visions for how Republicans can recover. Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) said the House Republicans �have found out the way to regain the majority is to go back to our old ways.� Pence said that while the GOP does need to adopt new technology and ideas, it really needs to �get back to basics.� �We need to be willing to fight for freedom, free markets and traditional family values,� he said. Other speakers warned audiences that they needed to rethink their priorities in order to come back to power. Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman and current host of MSNBC�s �Morning Joe,� warned the GOP against becoming the party of resistance and urged conservatives to tone down their rhetoric against Obama. �We have to present alternatives, we can�t just say no,� he said. �There is an alternative to everything we hear from the White House every single day, but we can�t just say no.� He added: �We�re not going to win votes and we�re not going to win elections by calling Barack Obama a communist.� But various scenes from the conference suggested that won�t be so simple. When House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called the president�s $787 billion stimulus a �down payment on a new American socialist experiment,� the audience exploded in enthusiastic response, just as it did when Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, suggested that Obama is not an American citizen. Obama, of course, wasn�t the only pin cushion at the conference�other frequent targets included House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Gingrich singled out Geithner as �part of the Bush group.� Despite the disappointments of the Bush era, CPAC's leader, American Conservative Union President David A. Keene, urged conservatives to remain hopeful and to continue to elect conservative pols. "[S]ometimes they don't live up to be everything we want them to,� he said, �but sometimes they do." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19433.html

The George Will comments I posted about a little while back and generated a large amount of controversy is addressed by the WaPo's ombudsman. The hallowed mainstream media at work: The Heat From a Global Warming Column by Ombudsman Sunday, March 1, 2009; Page A13 Opinion columnists are free to choose whatever facts bolster their arguments. But they aren't free to distort them. The question of whether that happened is at the core of an uproar over a recent George F. Will column and The Post's fact-checking process. [....] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022702334.html

This piece is long, but quite detailed. Not at all dissimilar to what happened with the Dan Rather/60 Mins story on Bush and the Air National Guard from what I read. Highly coordinated and speedy media response. Too speedy. Ya gotta love it....no? "But was Santelli�s rant really so spontaneous? How did a minor-league TV figure, whose contract with CNBC is due this summer, get so quickly launched into a nationwide rightwing blog sensation? Why were there so many sites and organizations online and live within minutes or hours after his rant, leading to a nationwide protest just a week after his rant? What hasn�t been reported until now is evidence linking Santelli�s �tea party� rant with some very familiar names in the Republican rightwing machine, from PR operatives who specialize in imitation-grassroots PR campaigns (called �astroturfing�) to bigwig politicians and notorious billionaire funders. As veteran Russia reporters, both of us spent years watching the Kremlin use fake grassroots movements to influence and control the political landscape. To us, the uncanny speed and direction the movement took and the players involved in promoting it had a strangely forced quality to it. If it seemed scripted, that's because it was. What we discovered is that Santelli�s �rant� was not at all spontaneous as his alleged fans claim, but rather it was a carefully-planned trigger for the anti-Obama campaign. In PR terms, his February 19th call for a �Chicago Tea Party� was the launch event of a carefully organized and sophisticated PR campaign, one in which Santelli served as a frontman, using the CNBC airwaves for publicity, for the some of the craziest and sleaziest rightwing oligarch clans this country has ever produced. Namely, the Koch family, the multibilllionaire owners of the largest private corporation in America, and funders of scores of rightwing thinktanks and advocacy groups, from the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine to FreedomWorks. The scion of the Koch family, Fred Koch, was a co-founder of the notorious extremist-rightwing John Birch Society. As you read this, Big Business is pouring tens of millions of dollars into their media machines in order to destroy just about every economic campaign promise Obama has made, as reported recently in the Wall Street Journal. At stake isn�t the little guy�s fight against big government, as Santelli and his bot-supporters claim, but rather the �upper 2 percent��s war to protect their wealth from the Obama Adminstration�s economic plans. When this Santelli �grassroots� campaign is peeled open, what�s revealed is a glimpse of what is ahead and what is bound to be a hallmark of his presidency. " http://www.playboy.com/blog/2009/02/backstabber.html

And I didn't emphasize you should go the link and read the entire piece.

And commentary from where I found it: "If this article is correct, then CNBC has staged the news, not just a single incident, but a whole string of discussions and programs that have been at the center of CNBC's programming since Santelli's staged rant. And from the evidence -- including the fact that the website used to organize the so-called tea party was created well in advance by the same right wing sources who orchestrated the Obama-Ayers story -- it appears that at least some of those involved were in on the scam."

Oops!! Somebody got their signals crossed. Louisiana to seek New Orleans-Baton Rouge passenger rail line from federal stimulus pot that Jindal called wasteful by Robert Travis Scott, The Times-Picayune Saturday February 28, 2009, 8:00 AM BATON ROUGE - Louisiana's transportation department plans to request federal dollars for a New Orleans to Baton Rouge passenger rail service from the same pot of railroad money in the president's economic stimulus package that Gov. Bobby Jindal criticized as unnecessary pork on national television Tuesday night. The high-speed rail line, a topic of discussion for years, would require $110 million to upgrade existing freight lines and terminals to handle a passenger train operation, said Mark Lambert, spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. Jindal on Tuesday delivered the official Republican Party response to President Barack Obama's address to Congress. He criticized the stimulus package passed by the Democratic-majority in Congress and the president and noted examples of projects that he found objectionable. "While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending," Jindal said. "It includes ... $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a 'magnetic levitation' line from Las Vegas to Disneyland." [....] http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/louisiana_to_seek_new_orleansb.html

I'm don't always agree with what he says, but he is saying here exactly what I said about Hillary and her envoys around the world, just much wordier. ;-) There's just too much to be done by one person at the same time. Op-Ed Columnist Super (Sub) Secretaries By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: February 28, 2009 It is way too soon to say what policy breakthroughs Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be known for at the State Department. But she has already left her mark bureaucratically. She has invented new diplomatic positions that say a great deal about the state of foreign policy in these messy times. I would call them �The Super Sub-Secretaries of State.� Mrs. Clinton has appointed three Super Sub-Secretaries � George Mitchell to handle Arab-Israel negotiations, Richard Holbrooke to manage Afghanistan-Pakistan affairs and Dennis Ross to coordinate Iran policy. The Obama team seems to have concluded that these three problems are so intractable that they require almost full-time secretary of state-quality attention. So you need officials who have more weight and more time � more weight than the normal assistant secretary of state so they will be taken seriously in their respective regions and will have a chance to move the bureaucracy, and more time to work on each of these discrete, Gordian problems than a secretary of state can devote in a week. Some scoff that this approach is a sign of weakness on Mrs. Clinton�s part. I�d hold off on that. If she can manage this diplomatic A-team, Mrs. Clinton�s experiment could make a lot of sense. It is a much more disorderly world out there. After the 1973 Arab-Israel war, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger set the gold standard for mediation by negotiating the disengagement agreements between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Syria � the first real peace accords ever struck between those parties. But Mr. Kissinger had it easy. He basically needed to forge an agreement between one pharaoh (Anwar Sadat), one military dictator (Hafez Assad) and one overwhelmingly powerful prime minister (Golda Meir), whose Labor Party then totally dominated Israel. All three of Kissinger�s interlocutors could speak for their people and deliver and sustain any agreements. That is not true today in the main theaters of conflict where the parties are either failing states with multiple power centers � Afghanistan, Pakistan and Palestine � or strong states with governments so fractious and hydra-headed that they border on paralyzed � Israel and Iran. The political struggles in these societies are so virulent today that until they are defused, it will be very difficult to make any deals between them. That is why you need sub-secretaries of state. So George Mitchell is, in effect, �Super Sub-Secretary of State for Nurturing a Coherent Palestinian Authority and a Coherent Israeli Negotiating Position So That the Two Might One Day Be Able to Strike a Deal Again.� Richard Holbrooke is �Super Sub-Secretary of State for Bringing Coherence to the Afghan and Pakistan Governments So That They Can One Day Be Internally Stable and United Against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.� And Dennis Ross is �Super Sub-Secretary of State for Amassing Global Leverage on the Incomprehensibly Byzantine Iranian Government So That It Will Terminate Its Nuclear Weapons Program.� In the cold war, the world was divided between East and West, and the Soviet Union could be counted on to aid, prop up and sometimes deliver the weaker states in its orbit. Today, the world is divided between �the regions of order� and �the regions of disorder,� and the regions of disorder are big enough and disorderly enough that they each require their own super sub-secretary of state to manage the chaos and mobilize the coalitions. �The world today can be much better understood if you think of it from the perspective of regions and not states,� said Gen. Jim Jones, President Obama�s national security adviser. And the regions of disorder are likely to multiply as the world�s economic crisis metastasizes. �As we look at 2009, on every issue, with the single exception of Iraq, everything is worse,� said Ian Bremmer, co-author of �The Fat Tail,� about the biggest risks facing the world�s decision-makers. �Pakistan is worse. Afghanistan is worse. Russia is worse. Emerging markets are worse. Everything big out there is worse, and some will be made even worse by the economic crisis.� There is a geopolitical storm coming, concluded Bremmer, �and it is not priced into the market yet.� Did anyone notice that the State Department issued a travel advisory for Mexico last week, warning that �Recent Mexican Army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat ... Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico ... During some of these incidents, U.S. citizens have been trapped.� That is Mexico, not Pakistan! �As the effects of the economic crisis spread and viable states become weak states and weak states become failed states, it is going to produce a series of geopolitical brush fires, if we are lucky, and real conflagrations, if we are not,� argued David Rothkopf, author of Running the World, a history of the National Security Council. �They will each demand the attention and resources of a government that already has limited bandwidth and an empty piggybank.� No, Mrs. Clinton doesn�t have too many super sub-secretaries. The truth is, she may not have enough. A version of this article appeared in print on March 1, 2009, on page WK10 of the New York edition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01friedman.html?_r=1

(Evelyn) (Evelyn) I always said I liked most of Hill's plan. (Dorine)Refresh my memory if you would, I don't remember what her plan was. (Evelyn) Google it. And I did. Here's one analysis I found... http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/02/an-analysis-o-1.html I remembered that it was said Obama's and Hil's plan weren't that different. And I don't see a tremendous difference except that at one point, I don't think O's plan covered everyone. What parts did you like that you referred to vs. O's plan? What parts didn't you like about her plan?

(Dorine) What parts did you like that you referred to vs. O's plan? What parts didn't you like about her plan *snort*Is this a Q&A? I like that Hill forces everyone to join. Not voluntary. Like Romney's plan in Ma. (PS I didn't go to your links; busy day)

There's no one here from MA, right? I've only read about the MA system in a peripheral way, but I thought I read that since they require you to join, they'll fine you if you don't. What I don't know is, why don't some people pay? Is it still too much? Or they just don't want to. I wonder what the minimum amount to join is. If some don't pay because they can't, how can they pay fines? I'll have to read up on that. I also read that it's costing significantly more than they anticipated.

Was just rereading: (Evelyn) And ,this is C.N.B.C. Not Fox Business News;-) It appears they are more like Fox than anyone knew. ;-)

(Dorine)Was just rereading: (Evelyn) And ,this is C.N.B.C. Not Fox Business News;-) (Dorine)It appears they are more like Fox than anyone knew. ;-) ROTF Reminds me of a cat my DIL had. When reprimanded, he would go off and sulk....then come back and bite her. No offense. I know you like cats;-)

Rush has to be totally lovin' all this attention. These people really are brilliant at media manipulation. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/what-to-do-about-rush/

Also on Sunday, G.O.P. party chair Michael Steele said, �I�m the de facto leader of the Republican Party� and �Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer,� I think I've heard this "he's just an entertainer" line before.;-) And here's an update: this morning, Michael Steele had to apologize to RL for his comments. *shaking head*

How can any inteligent person think that Democracy would work with Muslims? 8-Year-Old Girl Married Off to 47-Year-Old Man For every step forward women make, there are inevitable reminders that women and girls around the world still suffer unspeakable injustices and inequalities. Take the case of an 8-year-old girl in Saudi Arabia, who was recently married off to a 47-year-old man in order to settle her father's debts. Despite her mother's vehement disagreement with the marriage, the child was married off anyway, because it turns out that mothers in Saudi Arabia do not have the same rights as fathers. When the girl's mother took her case to the Saudi courts, a top cleric refused to annul the marriage, arguing, "A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her." The case is hardly unique: According to Human Rights Watch, child marriage is common across parts of the Middle East and Africa. http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/02/10/8-year-old-married-off-to-47-year-old-man/

I didn't hear Rush...but I don't know what the uproar is all about. He wants "Obama's policy to fail." He's for capitalism, pro-life, marriage between a man and woman, Etc. So? That's treason? Did you ever hear any liberal say they wanted Pres Bush's policies to fail? Were you enraged? Should I be about Rush? Is that like hoping the Taliban would win? I heard that one from libs. Or Hamas to win ? Where is the hue and cry there? Whoopi Goldberg's filthy remarks at the Tony comparing Bush to her pubic hair. Nice? *shaking head*;-)

Did you ever hear any liberal say they wanted Pres Bush's policies to fail?Is that like hoping the Taliban would win? Or Hamas to win ? Whoopi Goldberg's filthy remarks Not any liberal who was representing the Democratic Party. That's the difference. He's for capitalism Ok . . . pro-life I'm pro-choice. marriage between a man and woman So is Obama, but frankly I could not care less. People in your own party are saying this is a big embarrassment for them. Me, I should be gleeful, but I'm not made that way.

You'll see this clip all over the news tonight... White House Knocks Jim Cramer For Calling Obama Budget "Greatest Wealth Destruction By a President http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnbc/white_house_knocks_jim_cramer_for_calling_obama_budget_greatest_wealth_destruction_by_a_president_110203.asp Read the comments. I have to concur that WH's minimizing people by name over their right of free speech is at best unseemly and dangerous. Are we going to be subjected to this for the next 4-8 yrs. Trashing anyone who disagrees with his policies? Shows insecurity, IMO. *shaking head*, again;-)

Not any liberal who was representing the Democratic Party. That's the difference. Who more than: Howard Dean? Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Not to mention the Honorable Vice President.... Rush does not represent the Republican Party. And he hasn't called the President a liar.....so far.

Who more than: Howard Dean? Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Not to mention the Honorable Vice President.... There's criticsm, which is everyone's right, and then there's stating the hope that the policies of a man in office 4 weeks will fail. You can't see the difference? Your Cramer link doesn't open for me.

pro-life (Mari), I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-adoption. Too many people stupid enough not to know how to use birth control or not using it thinking how easy it is to get an abortion. Society does not have it right. I'm giving Obama a chance, but something is not working because stocks keep falling. I'm not happy with all the obstructionism right now.

There's criticsm, which is everyone's right, and then there's stating the hope that the policies of a man in office 4 weeks will fail. You can't see the difference? LOL. Nope. Criticism is criticism *regardelss* if the time frame. Sorry. And moreover, it's always a right

regardelss* if the time frame. It's irresponsible for a political party leader to wish failure on the president. They can disagree, and criticize, but to wish failure on the person who has the collective interests of Americans as his job is despicable. That's wishing failure on us all. Ok, how's this: you win, Rush! Obama fails and we are in worse shape than 1929. You win! Ok, now tell me what you won. Moon, I hate to tell you this, but we are in for a long siege. IMO, we'll be lucky if we can start to climb out of this in the next two years. The problems are systemic and they sure didn't develop overnight. And they won't be solved overnight. The U.S. economy is a big ship to turn around. This is years and years of neglect and fiscal irresponsibility coming home to roost.

Ohgawd...:-((((((( I'm givng up *hope* for Lent. The bottom line, Mari, is that the market doesn't like uncertainty and they see no plan for "growth" in the future. He doesn't care about the stock market, but people are losing their savings daily. Listening to tonight's business channels...(Bloomberg, too) they see the new carbon & trade regime as a tax that will be passed on to the consumer... another nail in the coffin. I know these are campaign promises that he wants enacted , and I concur with some of them, but he should focus on the economy first.

"The Nation" is forecasting "Economically Driven Violence" "As people lose confidence in the ability of markets and governments to solve the global crisis, they are likely to erupt into violent protests or to assault others they deem responsible for their plight, including government officials, plant managers, landlords, immigrants and ethnic minorities. " http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090316/klare A revolution!!

Did you ever hear any liberal say they wanted Pres Bush's policies to fail? Not really. Well, on second thought, if you're talking about the policies of torture and those that eroded civil liberties and breaking down of the Constitution....then, yes. Were you enraged? As an American citizen, of course. Should I be about Rush? Yes, you know why? He doesn't give two hoots about you or any other plain ole citizen Republican. It's the people who make him money and give him power he cares about. He's got millions. He's taken a hit I'm sure, but he's not in danger of losing that Palm Beach house of his. What does he care about the rest of the peons. And maybe Oxycontin. ;-) Is that like hoping the Taliban would win? I heard that one from libs. As you said to me once.....prove it. I'd like to see the context of a comment like that.

*gasp* I just noticed Evelyn posted a blog link that wasn't attached to a mainstream publication (Mediabistro) !! I'm proud of you! (Evelyn) I have to concur that WH's minimizing people by name over their right of free speech is at best unseemly and dangerous. Gibbs was asked about Cramer by name. It's not like he pulled his name out of the air to criticize. I didn't find anything particularly inflammatory about what the WH said either. They just basically dismissed his comments really. Also, Jim Cramer is quite inconsistently correct. I followed his views last fall when things started falling apart and he was very, very wrong about a number of things. Not that he wasn't the only one, mind you. And I read those comments. Some of those people are......interesting...to say the least.

(Dorine)He doesn't give two hoots about you or any other plain ole citizen Republican. Prove it!;-)

Uh oh....it's not just the Republicans that he's offending.... From THE TELEGRAPH (blog!) President Barack Obama just plain rude to Britain. Don't call us in future. Why couldn't President Obama have put on more of a show for his British guests? He looked like he simply couldn't be bothered. Number 10 may be content that they just about got away with the visit to the Oval Office yesterday, as Andrew Porter reports from Washington. But on this side of the Atlantic the whole business looked pretty demeaning. The morning papers and TV last night featured plenty of comment focused on the White House's very odd and, frankly, exceptionally rude treatment of a British PM. Squeezing in a meeting, denying him a full press conference with flags etc. The British press corps, left outside for an hour in the cold, can take it and their privations are of limited concern to the public. But Obama's merely warmish words (one of our closest allies, said with little sincerity or passion) left a bitter taste with this Atlanticist. Especially after his team had made Number 10 beg for a mini press conference and then not even offered the PM lunch. We get the point, sunshine: we're just one of many allies and you want fancy new friends. Well, the next time you need something doing, something which impinges on your national security, then try calling the French, or the Japanese, or best of all the Germans. The French will be able to offer you first rate support from their catering corps but beyond that you'll be on your own. When it comes to men, munitions and commitment you'll soon find out why it pays to at least treat the Brits with some manners. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/iain_martin/blog/2009/03/04/president_barack_obama_just_plain_rude_to_britain_dont_call_us_in_future "Hey, Barack, You're not in S. Chicago anymore;-)" So much for making friends with our allies..... The 201 comments are interesting too.

He's addressing a joint session of Congress as we speak. What more do you want? Also, Brown has been outspoken in blaming the U.S. for the current trobules in the world economy. And maybe he's right. But maybe O doesn't like that, even though it wasn't on his watch. Plus isn't Brown very unpopular at home and will soon be replaced?

the market doesn't like uncertainty and they see no plan for "growth" in the future. Give it time fergodsake! And I disagree that there's no plan for "growth." There will be growth--in education, in health care, in infrastructure, in green technology, etc. The money will start flowing. The more immediate need is trying to loosen up the credit markets. He doesn't care about the stock market, but people are losing their savings daily. No kidding, I'm one of them. But how can you say he doesn't care? Because he said he's not slavishly looking at it every minute? The markets would do better to follow that lead and not be thrown by every blip. That's what erodes confidence and our economy is built on confidence. We're up about 125 pts today, but wait until the unemployment figures come out on Friday--it will be back down. It's pure emotion.

(Dorine)Plus isn't Brown very unpopular at home and will soon be replaced? Perhaps, you are right, good manners don't matter anymore. As one of the comments stated: It's not the person one honors, but the office of Prime Minister. I dispised Bill, but had he come into a room, I would have stood -up immediately. He represented a v. venerable office, IMO. But hey, what do I know? There will be growth--in education, in health care, in infrastructure, in green technology, etc. The money will start flowing. ... Start the novena.

It's not the person one honors, but the office of Prime Minister. And he's been honored: the first foreign leader to be received at the White House (Sarkozy wanted it but didn't get it); an address to Congress (only 4 PMs have given one). This seems to be a tempest in a teapot stirred up by a media that's mad it didn't get a photo op in the Rose Garden. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. People who are bound and determined to find fault will undoubtedly always succeed in doing so. Start the novena. It's my audacity of hope.;-)

LOL, ladies! It is a sad state of affairs. After 9/11 the stocks also tumbled, we were in a crisis, but it was all turning around after one year. This time it will take longer, but unless we all show support for O's plan and get moving on it, it will drag on and on.

It's my audacity of hope.;-) He's banking on that. And actually, I want his fiscal policy to succeed too , the job creation part..it's his cultural social policies I have a problem with...at this time. Too much, too soon. But he's a master salesman, and he won, so he can call the shots. Little me is only a small voice:-)))

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/090304/K030406AU.html LOL

LOL!! At least they didn't change to something with DNR! :-O

After 9/11 the stocks also tumbled, we were in a crisis, but it was all turning around after one year. So completely different circumstances. I agree this hour to hour watch of stocks is not good. I had a friend/co-worker that even in good times, used to check her pension/403B/stock accounts daily, multiple times and she drove herself nuts. Well, if what I read and heard is true, the bank/financial world is much worse than we know and actually a number of big institutions still standing are supposedly already actually insolvent, but we aren't being told to avoid complete panic. Don't know if Karen has heard any such things or believes it.

Of course if one doesn't have an investments, "it don't mean a thing".

What "don't mean a thing?"

Kennedy to Receive Honorary Knighthood From Queen Elizabeth II By Kevin Sullivan and Debbi Wilgoren Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, March 4, 2009; 3:28 PM LONDON, March 4 -- Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) has been chosen to receive an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II, the British Foreign Office said. The honor was formally announced in Washington Wednesday by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, during his address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress. With Vice President Biden and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) looking on from the podium, Brown praised Kennedy's role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland after generations of civil strife, and his decades of work to strengthen health care and education opportunities in the United States and around the globe. "Northern Ireland today is at peace, more Americans have health care, children around the world are going to school," Brown said. "And for all these things, we owe a great debt to the life, and courage, of Senator Edward Kennedy." Lawmakers rose to their feet to applaud. Kennedy, 77, is battling brain cancer and was not in the House chamber for Brown's speech. The British premier said the two spoke by phone Tuesday night. ad_icon The senior senator from Massachusetts is one of the best-known American politicians in Britain, and the patriarch of the U.S. family that most closely resembles political royalty. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, was the U.S. ambassador to Britain in the years leading up to World War II. Two of his older brothers, President John F. Kennedy and senator and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, were assassinated in 1963 and 1968, respectively. Kennedy, who since his brothers' deaths has been the patriarch of the nation's leading liberal family, has served in the Senate since 1962, longer than any other current lawmaker except Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). He had surgery to remove a malignant brain tumor June 2. Experts have said that patients with his form of cancer often die within months of diagnosis, but surgery can help them survive for several years. The senator gave a stirring address at the Democratic National Convention in August and attended President Obama's inauguration in January. But he had a seizure at a luncheon following the inaugural ceremony. Kennedy has stayed involved in legislative issues in recent months, including efforts to reform health care and improve mental health treatment options in the United States, but has mostly stayed out of public view. Honorary knighthoods are generally given as recognition of achievement in various fields, from politics to sports. The vast majority of them go to British citizens. Kennedy joins a select group of Americans who have received the honor. According to Buckingham Palace, fewer than 100 U.S. citizens have received honorary knighthoods since the queen took the throne in 1952. They have included former presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, generals Norman Schwarzkopf and Tommy Franks, Henry Kissinger, Bob Hope, Steven Spielberg and Bill Gates. Last month, the British Embassy announced that former senator John W. Warner (R-Va.), would be similarly honored. Kennedy will not be able to officially use the title "Sir," according to a spokesman for Britain's Cabinet Office, which oversees the honors system. Brits who are knighted by the queen are entitled to that moniker, but people given honorary knighthoods are not, the spokesman said. Such protocol details did not stop Brown from using the title informally Wednesday morning, extending greetings "on behalf of the British people" to "Sir Edward Kennedy" during his speech. Wilgoren reported from Washington. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/04/AR2009030400651.html?hpid=sec-world

What "don't mean a thing?" Huh? They don't care. Heard a goody tonight: China doesn't tax capital gains. Also: Dominion Resources: good stock. "Obama resistant" LOL. Is that new favorable P/E ratio?????

(Evelyn) They don't care. You mean if we aren't invested with their stock, they don't care about us? What kind of investments? I'm not trying to be funny (or dense), but I'm not clear on what you've been trying say with your replies to that. I found this link in the Health/Well pages of the NYT. I tell ya, healthcare today.... http://www.rd.com/living-healthy/41-secrets-for-your-next-doctor-visit/article75920.html

Apparently the interpretative Dow fixation has its source in Fox News. You've got to see this. Click on the "Dow Knows All": http://www.thedailyshow.com/ Actually, you should watch the entire show as it was all about the economy and financial. Good segment on Santelli too. BTW, the bottom fell out of the markets the day after the Supreme Court ruled on Bush v. Gore and the recovery took more than a year. (Dorine) but I'm not clear on what you've been trying say with your replies to that. You're not the only one.

That was yesterday, and I don't remember what we were talking about...and I never re-read....nevah! BTW, the bottom fell out of the markets the day after the Supreme Court ruled on Bush v. Gore and the recovery took more than a year. Entirely different circumstance... Market has gone down 3000 pts since January... Entirely different circumstance;-)

More from THE TELEGRAPH (These guys won't let go...now Michelle...) Huh? Was 'Lady Macbeth' behind Barack Obama's snub of Gordon Brown? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_delingpole/blog/2009/03/05/was_lady_macbeth_behind_barack_obamas_snub_of_gordon_brown Hey Mari, you better tell Mr Delingpole what you told me...he's not buying. Think maybe he belongs to Fox News???;-))))))) (which you all like to blame derogatory remarks about the Prez)

(Evelyn) That was yesterday, and I don't remember what we were talking about...and I never re-read....nevah! Convenient. :-) I didn't remember that about the Dow and Bush vs. Gore. Re: Karen's post about the Daily Show, didn't realize Santelli was supposed to be on, too, but was pulled. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/4/233611/2413/967/704833

You know, all this crap against the Obamas, it's the Clintons all over again. :-(((

March 3, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist A Moderate Manifesto By DAVID BROOKS You wouldn�t know it some days, but there are moderates in this country � moderate conservatives, moderate liberals, just plain moderates. We sympathize with a lot of the things that President Obama is trying to do. We like his investments in education and energy innovation. We support health care reform that expands coverage while reducing costs. But the Obama budget is more than just the sum of its parts. There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor � caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once. So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new. The U.S. has never been a society riven by class resentment. Yet the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide. The president issued a read-my-lips pledge that no new burdens will fall on 95 percent of the American people. All the costs will be borne by the rich and all benefits redistributed downward. The U.S. has always been a decentralized nation, skeptical of top-down planning. Yet, the current administration concentrates enormous power in Washington, while plan after plan emanates from a small group of understaffed experts. The U.S. has always had vibrant neighborhood associations. But in its very first budget, the Obama administration raises the cost of charitable giving. It punishes civic activism and expands state intervention. The U.S. has traditionally had a relatively limited central government. But federal spending as a share of G.D.P. is zooming from its modern norm of 20 percent to an unacknowledged level somewhere far beyond. Those of us who consider ourselves moderates � moderate-conservative, in my case � are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget �contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal�s dream of a new New Deal.� Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, �a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.� On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama�s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it. Those of us in the moderate tradition � the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government � thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We�re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force. The first task will be to block the excesses of unchecked liberalism. In the past weeks, Democrats have legislated provisions to dilute welfare reform, restrict the inflow of skilled immigrants and gut a voucher program designed for poor students. It will be up to moderates to raise the alarms against these ideological outrages. But beyond that, moderates will have to sketch out an alternative vision. This is a vision of a nation in which we�re all in it together � in which burdens are shared broadly, rather than simply inflicted upon a small minority. This is a vision of a nation that does not try to build prosperity on a foundation of debt. This is a vision that puts competitiveness and growth first, not redistribution first. Moderates are going to have to try to tamp down the polarizing warfare that is sure to flow from Obama�s �ber-partisan budget. They will have to face fiscal realities honestly and not base revenue projections on rosy scenarios of a shallow recession and robust growth next year. They will have to take the economic crisis seriously and not use it as a cue to focus on every other problem under the sun. They�re going to have to offer an agenda that inspires confidence by its steadiness rather than shaking confidence with its hyperactivity. If they can do that, maybe they can lure this White House back to its best self � and someday offer respite from the endless war of the extremes. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/opinion/03brooks.html?_r=1 David Brooks is my kind of centrist, moderate conservative. He tells it better than I can. Gotta read him while it's still free.

(Dorine)Convenient. :-) Let me explain... It's really not convenient... I don't have as much time to re-read as you have;-)))

The Dow Knows All on Daily Show....LOL!! (Karen) you should watch the entire show as it was all about the economy and financial. Good segment on Santelli too. That segment, CNBC Gives Financial Advice, was very funny as well.

Hope that worked. (Me) Also, Jim Cramer is quite inconsistently correct. I followed his views last fall when things started falling apart and he was very, very wrong about a number of things. Not that he wasn't the only one, mind you. Think Jon Stewart was a lurker yesterday? ;-)) The timing of his bit illustrating this was....well, timely.

Last night on The Kudlow Report there was a columnist from The Financial Times who wrote a column entitled... "Stock Market to Obama: I'm Just Not into You" V. timely;-)

LOL! The stock market seems not to be into anyone or anything at the moment.

closing tag "Stock Market to Obama: I'm Just Not into You" Talk about shifting blame. As far as I know, Obama is not traded on any of the exchanges.

"Stock Market to Obama: I'm Just Not into You" Addendum: How wrong can a title be? The market is really *in* to Obama to the tune of how many billions of dollars. How much is the govt's stake in Citigroup? 30+% By anyone's defintion, they're "in" to Obama. Big time.

LOL I don't think you're getting it....

Putting this out seems like a good way to encourage a run on banks. :-( FDIC warns US bank deposit insurance fund could tank Thu Mar 5, 1:20 pm ET WASHINGTON (AFP) � The US government is warning banks that its deposit insurance fund could go broke this year as bank failures mount. The head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair, in a letter to bank chief executives dated March 2, defended the FDIC's plan to raise fees on banks and assess an emergency fee to shore up the fund and maintain investor confidence. Bair acknowledged the new fees, announced Friday, would put additional pressure on banks at time of financial crisis and a deepening recession, but insisted they were critical to keep the insurance fund solvent and protect. "Without these assessments, the deposit insurance fund could become insolvent this year," Bair wrote. The FDIC chief said in the letter that the rapidly deteriorating economic conditions raised the prospects of "a large number" of bank failures through 2010. "Without substantial amounts of additional assessment revenue in the near future, current projections indicate that the fund balance will approach zero or even become negative," she wrote. The FDIC last Friday announced it would impose a temporary emergency fee on lenders and raise its regular assessments to shore up the rapidly depleting deposit insurance fund that insures individual customer deposits up to 250,000 dollars. A week ago the FDIC reported a sharp depletion of the deposit insurance fund in the fourth quarter due to actual and anticipated bank failures, to 19 billion dollars from 34.6 billion in the third quarter. The FDIC said it had set aside an additional 22 billion dollars for estimated losses on failures anticipated in 2009. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090305/bs_afp/financeeconomyusbankinggovernment

Wow, this is the hottest topic on Spring!

Isn't that unconscionable? Our own Sheila Bair? Larry Kudlow remarked on that just a few minutes ago. Charlie Schumer's similar remark is what caused the run on Indybank in Ca. last year. "The FDIC last Friday announced it would impose a temporary emergency fee on lenders and raise its regular assessments to shore up the rapidly depleting deposit insurance fund that insures individual customer deposits up to 250,000 dollars. " A rep from the small cummunity banks , who are not insolvent, are outraged at this...say they can't afford it. As it is FDIC insurance costs them plenty. Oy..

Wow, that Daily Show on Santelli/CNBC is the "talk of the town". I guess just like his slapdown of the CNN Crossfire people on their show was a few years ago. A recap from the Columbia Journalism Review: What follows is a five-and-a-half-minute sacking of CNBC�a list of embarrassing clips of the network�s talking heads getting it very, very wrong followed by black screens reporting what happened to their predictions. It�s hilarious, starting with the slam of Jim Cramer�s infamous defense of Bear Stearns less than a week before it essentially collapsed. Cramer also gets hit for telling investors to buy stocks at the top of the market even though he admits they�re overvalued (to his credit, Santelli has slammed Cramer on the same thing). I was glad to see the especially terrible Larry �Goldilocks� Kudlow come in for a kick in the pants, too. Now, I�ll point out that these are selective clips taken from thousands of hours of broadcast time. It�s impossible to be on live television that long without screwing up. We all get that. But what makes this so interesting is what Stewart does to pierce the CNBC bubble on several different things that make the network so disliked by business journalists generally: Its lack of a line between opinion and reporting (and lack of disclosure about who�s a reporter and who�s not). Its Siamese-twin closeness to Wall Street. Its rah-rah rooting for the stock markets. Its inanity in interviews that too often veers into sycophancy. On the other hand, if there is a discomfort among the business reporters with CNBC, it might be because the network�s bad practices are only extreme manifestations of wider cultural problems in their profession. [....] Believe me, this Daily Show segment is buzzing around financial circles today. At least financial journalism circles. I�ve already received emails from multiple reporters about it, including this one from a prominent business journalist: "I think you�ll find that CNBC is really despised by financial journalists for a host of reasons. Problem is that nobody, myself included, will say so for the record." http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/daily_show_eviscerates_santell.php#comments

Just as an FYI, before someone starts quoting this guy and his group on either side of a debate, keep his background in mind. http://www.conservatives4patientrights.com/ On February 26, The Wall Street Journal reported that Richard Scott, "the former chief executive of HCA Inc," had formed the non-profit organization Conservatives for Patients' Rights as part of a "lobbying campaign[] to derail or modify" President Obama's health care proposals, and quoted Scott saying: "What you see is when the government gets involved, you run out of money and health care gets rationed." The Journal failed to note, however, that according to a July 26, 1997, Los Angeles Times article, Scott resigned "as chairman of Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. amid a massive federal investigation into the Medicare billing, physician recruiting and home-care practices of the nation's largest for-profit health care company." On December 15, 2000, Forbes reported that HCA -- The Heathcare Company, formerly Columbia/HCA Healthcare, "pleaded guilty to a variety of fraud charges. It admitted to bilking various government programs and agreed to pay a total of $840 million in fines and penalties." Forbes also re orted that "Scott was forced to resign in the wake of the initial fraud charges in 1997." In contrast to the Journal, the Politico noted on March 3 that "[p]ro-health reform activists also have begun circulating information in an effort to discredit Scott," citing the December 2000 Forbes article on Scott's resignation and HCA's subsequent plea. Politico further reported that HCA "eventually paid over $880 million to reach a settlement with the Justice Department in 2002 on the charges." According to a December 18, 2002, Justice Department press release, "When added to the prior civil and criminal settlements reached in 2000, this settlement would bring the government's total recoveries from HCA to approximately $1.7 billion." http://mediamatters.org/items/200903030027?f=s_search

(Me) Ya gotta love it....no? Alas, no! It appears something was wrong with the Playboy Santelli rant story. When I didn't hear more about it in the next day or so, I thought there might be. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/update-santelli-stares-down-playboy/ This isn't where I first read about it. I read several of the pieces linked after the article, but put this link in as I was amused by Playboy puns interspersed in the the comments.

(Mitch McConnell) This would take health care decisions out of doctors and patients and place them in the hands of another Washington bureaucracy." I'm so sick (ha!) of seeing this talking point/tagline. Guess what? Unless you're on some super duper commercial plan (or whatever the members of Congress have), at least some of the decisions are already out of the hands of Doctors and patients. I can't speak for straight Medicaid plans universally as they vary from state to state. http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0309/senator_vows_health_care_compromise_18944a21-9a16-4959-9663-12db7399d73c.html

Anybody that disagrees with this administration (or Dorine;-)) is wrong????? Whatever happened to respecting other people's opinions? It's not like they're throwing green custard pies...;-)

LOL! Evelyn, did you play the Daily Show bit on Santelli and CNBC? Jon Stewart and his writers are a treasure.

A good primer on the bear market. Worth 5 minutes of your time to read. http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20090306/bs_bw/0911b4123026586146

I watched the news coverage of the Mandelson, green custard, incident. He was lucky it wasn't something toxic. Totally amazed at the lack of security.The woman simply walk away with those around looking on. Video footage here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7928946.stm

Thanks Mari. Interesting link. "Biderman says he'll know corporations are getting confident once they start buying back their own shares and acquiring other companies. Right now they show no such bravado" Jeffrey Immelt (GE) bought a ton of his stock back one day and the next day the price went down. Same with Chesapeake:-(((( Often a smoke screen, I find. All kinds of critiques out there. Some seniors who relied on IRAs for partial income have had to go out and find a job. I still don't see where the growth is going to occur, if they keep taxing the corporations. Luckily energy prices are down. Gives folks some extra $$$$. (Sue)The woman simply walk away with those around looking on. Shocking. He remarked that it could have been paint. Or acid!

(Evelyn)Shocking. He remarked that it could have been paint. Or acid! Absolutely. Gordon Brown joked about the incident at the conference on carbon emissions. IMO, not only the lack of security in the first instant, but also their complacency in dealing with this is sending out a dangerous message. The woman should have been arrested and either cautioned or charged for assault.

Incidentally, this week there were protesters outside the office where my husband works, protesting at Goodwin's astronomical pension, totally appalling, but don't get me started :-( Anyway, thankfully the demo turned out to be a damp squid. But, at least his employer arranged for a good police presence to offer protection for staff.

Just heard on the news. Scotland Yard are investigating, but so far there have been no complaints. John Prescott has said the lack of action is appalling, or words to that effect.

(Mari) Jon Stewart and his writers are a treasure. Agreed. The entire show was brilliant. From Dorine's link to the Columbia Journalism Review (is that a worthless blog?) on the second page:And as Stewart said in his interview later in the show with Joe Nocera of the Times: Don�t they have, is there, has there been any responsibility for CNBC, Bloomberg, for any of these organizations to be ahead of this in any way? Watch this segment. In fact, watch the whole show. There�s another segment that blows up the idiocy of the blabber (including, prominently, from CNBC�s Cramer, who now calls Obama a �Bolshevik�) about Obama causing the stock-market crash (it has nothing to do, of course, with our cratering financial system/economy) and that the Dow signals Americans� disapproval of his presidency despite poll ratings that show he�s popular. And the Nocera interview. And the Moment of Zen. Watch it all.BTW, I meant exactly what I posted before and *did* understand the cutsy article title by the FT guy. It was just wrong, wrong, wrong. The stock market isn't a Gallup poll. As I've always said, I've never met an economist who has lost his job due to bad forecasts. Financial analysis is equally nebulous. In fact, I'm certain there's a dart board in most financial analysts offices with all sorts of cliched reasons why anything happens. I still don't see where the growth is going to occur, if they keep taxing the corporations. Tax, tax, tax, tax, tax. Haven't the past 8 years shown you that reducing taxes on corporations doesn't promote growth. Also, I don't know why you're asking where the growth is going to occur as the US shipped all its business overseas during the past administration.

Anybody that disagrees with this administration (or Dorine;-)) is wrong????? To what are you specifically referring to? Respecting an opinion doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Or that it is actually right. On either side.

Respecting an opinion doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Exactly. But Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer, CNBC and Bloomberg have a right to say what they want...as do you. As does Jon Stewart or Bill Maher, or Bill O'reilly, Hannity, Rush, al Franken, Chris Marrhews, olberman, Maddow...who else? Who else? oh yes... moi;-) W/o being :wrong!

(Karen)BTW, I meant exactly what I posted before and *did* understand the cutsy article title by the FT guy. It was just wrong, wrong, wrong *shaking head*

Sue , what those guys need is to carry some prtection...mace...a gun? Gun stores have seen a spike in business. Folks are scared. http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/40865102.html

BTW i think short- selling should be outlawed, Comrades. I bet Chavez doesn't allow it ;-) Arriba Venezeula!

I agree about short selling actually.

BTW i think short- selling should be outlawed Sounds like regulation to me or government interference in free markets.

But Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer, CNBC and Bloomberg have a right to say what they want...as do you. They have a right to say anything they want. It doesn't necessarily make them right.

And do you mean Bloomberg the channel or the mayor? Because, no, the mayor doesn't have the right to say what he wants.

(Evelyn)Sue , what those guys need is to carry some prtection...mace...a gun? or cf spray. I can't get over watching the woman simply walk away from an assault, incredulous.

That is kind of amazing in this day and age.

Butterfly is on today's Met Satellite. Playing in a theatre nr you. I'm off.

But Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer, CNBC and Bloomberg have a right to say what they want...as do you. I guess they do have the right to say it, though if time shows they are rather consistently incorrect with their opinions or base their opinions on flawed data/facts, then I suppose I have the right not to listen and think they're wrong. And I don't have to respect their answers/opinions, but only their right to say it. An example for me is George Will in that column on global warming that got all the press recently with his incorrect fact(s). I have the right to express my opinion that I think the world is flat, too, but at the least, I'd sound quite silly doing so.

if time shows they are rather consistently incorrect with their opinions or base their opinions on flawed data/facts Or give flawed opinions on solid data/facts, I don't have to respect that either.

(Dorine)I have the right to express my opinion that I think the world is flat, too, but at the least, I'd sound quite silly doing so. Not to me;-) if time shows they are rather consistently incorrect with their opinions or base their opinions on flawed data/facts Or give flawed opinions on solid data/facts, I don't have to respect that either I have a little secret to tell you, Dorine. *No one* is correct 100% of the time. Nor is *anyone* consistently incorrect. I mean, as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day;-D

Speaking of clocks, don't forget to move clocks forward tonight (though I'll imagine by the time most people read this as it's late here, most will have done it).

Police finally catch up with and arrest the custard thrower. What took them so long............. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7931185.stm

Again, business subverts the game plan to create new jobs by focusing on short-term revenue. Low stock prices are enabling companies to buy up others and then eliminate more jobs. :-( Merck buying Schering-Plough in a $41.1B deal TRENTON, N.J. � Merck & Co. is buying Schering-Plough Corp. for $41.1 billion in a deal that gives Merck key new businesses, access to a promising pipeline of new products and the chance to further cut costs, including eliminating about 16,000 jobs. Merck hopes the cash-and-stock deal helps it better compete in a drug industry facing slumping sales, tough generic competition and intense pricing pressures. The deal announced Monday would unite the maker of asthma drug Singulair with the maker of allergy medicine Nasonex and form the world's second-largest prescription drugmaker. Merck and Schering are already partners in a pair of popular cholesterol fighters, Vytorin and Zetia, although concerns about safety and effectiveness have hurt sales. Shares of the two companies traded furiously after the announcement, with Schering's shares skyrocketing and Merck's dropping, typical for a company doing a big acquisition. At midday, Schering shares jumped $2.53, or 14.4 perent, to $20.16, and Merck shares fell $2.19, or 9.6 percent to $20.55. The deal comes only a few weeks after Lipitor maker Pfizer Inc. agreed to pay $68 billion for drugmaker Wyeth. Merck and Schering-Plough, along with most of their rivals, are eliminating thousands of jobs and restructuring operations to cut costs. "There'll be no immediate changes" in staffing, Merck spokeswoman Amy Rose told The Associated Press. "Eventually, we anticipate an approximate 15 percent reduction in the combined company's headcount," implying nearly 16,000 fewer jobs. The deal also would let Merck do the same thing Pfizer is trying to do with its acquisition � diversify into a more broad-based health care company. Merck is a top maker of pills and vaccines, and acquiring Schering-Plough will add strength in the prized area of biologic drugs, which are made from living cells. It will also give Merck one of the world's biggest animal health businesses and a sizable consumer health division that includes products such as allergy pill Claritin, Dr. Scholl's foot products and the Coppertone sun-care line. Merck Chairman and CEO Richard Clark told The Associated Press the company will be "well-positioned for sustainable growth through scientific innovation." Big drugmakers are facing slumping sales as the blockbuster drugs of the 1990s lose patent protection, complicated by a dearth of new drugs. Schering-Plough, however, has patent protection for key products until the middle of the next decade and what is considered one of the best product pipelines. Still, analyst Steve Brozak of WBB Securities said the deal is mainly about Merck "buying revenue and buying earnings." "It's a good short-term fix, but it unfortunately makes it more complicated for the long term," Brozak said. He said it will now be more difficult for Merck to continue its strategy of buying or licensing the few promising experimental compounds available from small biotech companies, many of which are on the verge of shutting down amid the recession and credit crunch. Brozak said he thinks the next big move likely will be a large drugmaker, perhaps J&J itself, acquiring a medical device maker. J&J already has a huge business in that field and lost a heated battle three years ago to acquire heart implant maker Guidant to Boston Scientific. Merck and Schering-Plough said the deal will save them about $3.5 billion per year after 2011 and will boost earnings in the first full year after the deal closes. Combined with their current restructuring, they expect a total of $5.95 billion in annual savings after 2011. "We'll double Merck medicines in (late-stage development) to 18," Clark added. Schering-Plough CEO Fred Hassan said in an interview that Nasonex, Pegintron for hepatitis, cancer drug Temodar, the Nuvaring contraceptive and the two cholesterol drugs all have patent protection until 2014 or later. The two companies had a combined $47 billion in revenue in 2008, nearly as much at the largest drugmaker, Pfizer Inc., which posted $48.42 billion last year. Pfizer expects late this year to acquire Wyeth, which would add more than $20 billion in revenue. Merck has about 55,200 employees and Schering-Plough, which grew significantly with its November 2007 acquisition of Dutch biopharmaceutical company Organon BioSciences NV, has about 50,800. Schering-Plough shareholders will get $10.50 in cash and 0.5767 Merck shares for each Schering-Plough share they own. That's a 34 percent premium to Schering-Plough's closing stock price Friday. Stock would cover 56 percent of the deal's funding, with the other 44 percent in cash: $9.8 billion in existing cash balances and $8.5 billion in financing committed by JPMorgan Chase & Co., the companies said. The small amount being borrowed � barely 20 percent of the price � is a sign of the credit crunch's effects. Clark will lead the combined company, which will be a dominant player in treatment areas including cholesterol, respiratory, infectious disease and women's drugs, as well as vaccines. Schering sells the arthritis drug Remicade outside the U.S. and also has some rights to another in late-stage development, golimumab, under a partnership with Johnson & Johnson, which makes Remicade. Because Schering has been making roughly $2 billion a year from that deal, Merck's acquisition of Schering-Plough is structured as a reverse merger to avoid triggering provisions in the J&J deal that might cost the new company that revenue. As a result, Schering-Plough will be the surviving corporation but will take the Merck name and will be based at Merck's headquarters in Whitehouse Station, N.J. Hassan said the three companies have a good relationship and that he "had a cordial conversation with Bill Weldon," New Brunswick, N.J.-based J&J's CEO, Monday morning. Brozak, the analyst, said "it's always possible" J&J could throw a wrench in the deal, but it's too soon to say. A Johnson & Johnson spokesman did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Stock analysts have long pressured Clark to do a major deal to address falling sales, as blockbusters including Fosamax and Zocor for high cholesterol have seen generic competition hammer sales in the past 2 1/2 years. Hassan will participate in planning how to combine the companies until the deal closes, expected in the fourth quarter. Merck's sales fell 3 percent in the fourth quarter, at $6 billion, while Schering-Plough's rose 17 percent to $4.35 billion, mainly because of Organon's products. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_bi_ge/merck_schering_plough

On thing though, the pharma companies have been too rep heavy for a long time, and now especially that a number of their best sellers are going to be going generic soon, or have gone already with nothing new in the pipeline. They don't need all those people. Plus, doctors have been giving less and less access to reps over the past 5 years or so (which has somewhat ruined it for others, including me a now non-drug rep who still needs access). Why pay people all that money (including cars/commissions) to be less and less effective at marketing? Fortunately while I was there, I had my territory to myself. My company didn't do the pods thing (3 or 4 people assigned to the same territory/offices) and I did very well on my own. I always hated the concepts of pods. First of all it would mean I'd have to split the commission for my area and my doctors didn't want to be bothered once a week about the same thing with nothing new to say. And they didn't need my samples that often. My company did something like it after I left, but not sure if that helped them or not. I can't argue that those big companies made a ton of money with all those people, but it's just too much now. It's sad for them, but it was overkill to begin with.

And the pharma contractions have been accelerating over the past several years as pipelines dry up. Roche and Genentech look to be next. It's not exactly short term as many of these companies are years from having much new, if anything, either because nothing is coming out or the stuff they developed has gotten snagged up in the FDA approval process or been outright rejected. Plus it's no guarantee that drug will do well even if it does come out. My old company created a division (after I left) when they had a product to be sold only to hospitals, but it did so poorly (because of issues with the drug mostly) that they folded that division after 2 years. They didn't have thousands of employees, but still, not all were absorbed, and some left before. They just bought another company last year, too, because they needed more stuff in their "toolboxes".

Again, business subverts the game plan to create new jobs by focusing on short-term revenue. "create new jobs"...have you seen the lay-offs of the pharma companies...and not just reps. Research is going to the dogs; they can't afford it. All healthcare stocks are in the toilet. They have no idea where the administration is going. Who wants to buy stock in any of them? "short term revenue"......ha, I wish.

Research is going to the dogs; they can't afford it. Excuse while I fall on the floor laughing that they can't afford research.

(Dorine) the pharma companies have been too rep heavy for a long time That may be so, but one general rule about cost cutting is that you don't cut your salesmen, your revenue producers. Ideally they should pay for themselves many times over. Obviously, if you buy another company's product line, the existing sales force can rep it too, creating the efficiencies. However, the first focus of cost cutting is typically overhead and customer service areas which would be duplicative, then actual operations people who put out the products...before sales would get hit. That is what I meant by this move subverting the idea of job creation. (Dorine) Excuse while I fall on the floor laughing that they can't afford research. Make room for me on that floor. ;-) .