Steve

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/john-boehner-payroll-tax-cut-extension_n_1285514.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=832035,b=facebook John Boehner Upset That The Payroll Tax Cut Extension Means Ordinary Americans Will Have More MoneySo let's get this straight: Boehner "supports" the "agreement" that will "stop a tax hike on middle class Americans." But! He says, "let's be honest, this is an economic relief package, not a bill that's going to grow the economy and create jobs." Everyone should note the separation here. Per Boehner, providing tax relief to the middle class -- while it may be swell for them, and even "fair" -- is something that has no beneficial impact on the economy or employment. The implication here is that you're never helping the economy by giving the middle class an advantage of any kind. To Boehner's mind, it's not a good thing to put more money in the pockets of ordinary Americans, with which they could ... I'm just spitballing here ... buy stuff, increase demand and spur additional hiring. And yet, when I cast my mind back to the job creators we've talked to, they've made it pretty clear that they hire when they are profitable, and that in order to be profitable, people have to actually buy stuff. To Boehner's mind, the only thing that can or should be done to aid the economy is funnel more taxpayer money to the wealthy "job creators,"

Gotta admit, one of the stories said one terrorist was going to use a model airplane, pretty good idea actually. I once heard that if you were part of the briefing about the threat assesments and such you'd be hardpressed not to want to end most civil liberties. However, its not what we are about as a people and the added exposure is the price we pay for those liberties. Still, any security expert will tell you the TSA bullshyt is all show and is not worth the time and effort in the war on terrorism.

I would disagree about hating the rich per se. The rich were always celebrated in America for decades. People looked up to and admired JP Morgan and Rockerfellers a century ago and today Trump, Bill Gates and Warrent Buffet are equally admired. A couple decades ago shows like 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous' were very popular. Its not the rich individuals per se that people have a problem with. Its corporations that get special treatment (with regads taxes, regulations, etc) and then use these advantages they have to squeeze as much out of the populace based on greed and avarice. They use these advantages to not only move jobs overseas but set up factories where people are often exploited. Not all but enough of them to, in my honest opinion, deserve the anger of the people. They own the politicians. There is no doubt about that. So, I'm not sure how one can argue they have unfair advantages since they often write the legislation that affects them. I have a question. If we gave corporations the right to hire, fire and discard waste in any manner they chose how many would do the right thing? We are under the deluded and misguided belief that since these are Americans that run these companies they are patriotic and trustworthy. They are in for the profit and most feel absolutely no loyalty to provide jobs for their fellow Americans and some feel no moral obligation to look after the planet, etc. I'm not even saying they should. True capitalism and free market thinking doesn't allow for nationalism and loyalty to the state or the people. In fact, legally they can't. Corporations are publicly traded and MUST act in the best interest of their shareholders and if they forego potential profits for matters of patriotism it could be argued they broke their fidicuary duty unless they can prove acting as such enhances their company in some form or manner (admittedly sometimes it does). I'm no fan of big government. However, its the government that has to step in and look after the interests of society and the sad fact is the modern government does not do it well enough because they are too influenced by said corporations. The Occupy Wall Street do have a legitimate concern. The banks were raping us with fees,surcharges and the like before the bailout. They get bailed out with public money and are continuing the same and at even faster pace and blaming the fact their own self engineered financial issues means they must do that. Its insane. Utterly insane. I have to think some of us (HH buddy) are 'Stockholm'd'. I am not looking to punish companies. Heck, I'd love to have a successful company one day if any of my hairbrained ideas I have ever come to fruition. I (and others) are simply asking for fairness and I can not imagine how it can be argued they are under the thumb of the government when its proven they own the government.

Its not illegal but frankly, I'm not comfortable with a company the zize of Yahoo which also doubles as a news agency since many folks (including myself) get a lot of news from them to predict a winner. Irresponsible knowing how easy it is to manipulate the American voters. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/obama-poised-win-2012-election-303-electoral-votes-202543583.html Obama poised to win 2012 election with 303 electoral votes: The Signal Forecast How do we know? We don't, of course. Campaigns and candidates evolve, and elections are dynamic events with more variables than can reasonably be distilled in an equation. But the data--based on a prediction engine created by Yahoo! scientists--suggest a second term is likely for the current president. This model does not use polls or prediction markets to directly gauge what voters are thinking. Instead, it forecasts the results of the Electoral College based on past elections, economic indicators, measures of state ideology, presidential approval ratings, incumbency, and a few other politically agnostic factors.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/had-just-stayed-completely-let-market-believe-market-202311111.html Santorum, who was not in office in 2008 when Congress voted for the TARP auto bailouts, took a hard stance against bailouts during the question-and-answer session following his speech. Contrasting himself with opponent Mitt Romney, Santorum said that while Romney, a former Massachusetts governor who earned significant wealth from a private equity firm, supported the Wall Street bailout but rejected the auto bailout, Santorum has been consistent in his opposition. "If we had just stayed out of it completely and let the market work, I believe the market would have worked," Santorum said. "Would the auto industry look different than it does today? Yes, it would be. Would it still be alive and well? I think it would be alive and equally as well if not better." In explaining his opposition to the auto bailout, Santorum, grandson of a coal miner, cited his experiences in Pennsylvania dealing with a struggling steel industry, which he concedes today is smaller and experiences inconsistent profits, but is alive and competitive. Wow. Romney is not looking good in a state he should win handily. (below) Recent polls show Santorum cutting into and even overtaking Romney's lead in Michigan as the state's "native son."

So, if you publicly march and complain about big companies (Occupy Wall Street) you're a loser and if you publicly march and complain about the government (Tea Party) you're a true American. hehehe

That sounds very similar to the Smoot-Hawley Act that was blamed for worsening the Great Depression.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-plan-insourcing-help-revive-u-manufacturing-182159316.html Can Obama’s plan for ‘insourcing’ help revive U.S. manufacturing? "Right now we have an excellent opportunity to bring manufacturing back -- but we have to seize it," Obama said. The president praised Master Lock during his State of the Union Address last month for bringing back to its Milwaukee plant around 100 jobs that previously had been moved to China. At an 'Insourcing American Jobs' forum held last month, Obama urged a reorientation of the economy toward manufacturing. "I don't want America to be a nation that's primarily known for financial speculation and racking up debt buying stuff from other nations," he said. "I want us to be known for making and selling products all over the world stamped with three proud words: 'Made in America.' " Don't see how we're going to do this. Yeah, we'll get some manufacturing jobs but from what I can see the econmics just aren't there. First and foremost is the cost of labor. Just don't see it. To encourage the trend, the Obama administration wants to scrap tax deductions for shipping jobs overseas, and offer new incentives for returning them to the United States. The administration is also pushing for a $2 billion per year tax credit to encourage manufacturers to invest in struggling communities, among other measures. That's a start. I've been advocating cutting corporate welfare for companies doing business overseas for a while. They don't need it.

F*cking Banks!! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bank-fees-watch-2012-050114176.html New bank fees to watch for in 2012 Already, a checking-account customer may be charged as many as 49 different fees — and that’s just the median number of fees, according to a study by the Pew Institute of 250 types of checking accounts offered by the 10 largest U.S. banks. See an infographic of the Pew's study results here. Many new or higher fees are designed to offset revenue losses from the 2009 Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act and other new regulations, or simply to help banks reduce their costs by, for instance, encouraging you to use the Internet. “New fees that you’ve never heard of before, such as those for getting paper statements, will be coming,†said Pam Banks, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union. Read more: Your bank wants to be your new best friend Overdraft fees It’s painful when you’re hit with an overdraft fee, but Banks says they’re likely to get worse, going as high as $40 or $45, depending on your bank. That’s up from an average of $27.50 last year, according to Moebs Services, and higher than what credit unions generally charge. Monthly minimums Monthly fees on some checking accounts can run about $14 a month or almost $170 a year, according to BankRate.com, but new requirements are on the horizon. “We’ve already seen fees kick in in December that might continue into this year — stealth fees like increasing the monthly minimum balance requirements to avoid maintenance fees,†Matjanec said. Citibank’s EZ checking, no longer available to new customers, requires a balance of $6,000 to avoid the $15 monthly fee, rising from a minimum of $1,500 to avoid $7.50. Wiring money Looking to send money the same day? You should watch out for new fees here, too, especially if you’re a frequent user. Some banks are already starting to increase wire transfer fees or even charge for incoming wire transfers that previously were free. TD Bank, for example, is now charging $15 for an incoming wire, up from zero. Card replacement Lost a card? Too bad there’s not a GPS tracker for your cards! The fees to replace them are going up and we’re likely to see more. Bank of America, for instance, now charges $5, up from $2 previously. If you need your card within 24 hours, it’ll run $20 (in part to pay for the overnight delivery). Other fees In an effort to reduce costs related to hired help and to mailing paper statements, banks will also provide more incentives to do it yourself, online. PNC and BBVA Compass are now charging $3 and $5, respectively, to have funds transferred with the help of a phone rep, although you can do it free online. And those paper statements? Yes, they’re a real cost and banks may start charging you for them, too, or reducing other fees for going electronic. TD Bank, for example, will reduce your monthly maintenance fees by $1 if you choose electronic statements over paper. You may also see monthly statement fees with some banks. Banks like USA Bank and PNC now charge $25 for closing your account within 180 days. Chase tested the concept but opted not to roll it out, Matjanec said. They were fee-ing us to death while they were making money, get bailed out and now increase it over money they lost themselves. You can't make it up. There should have been some stipulations in that bailout about fees and such. Our tax money gave them money to screw us over even more.

http://news.yahoo.com/bail-politics-even-michigans-economy-improving-100047912--abc-news.html Bail-Out Politics: Even Michigan's Economy Is Improving I still wouldn't have done the bailouts. Someone would have come in, even if they got the car companies for pennies on the dollar. Its a bad precedent to set.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-ge-to-hire-5000-us-veterans-investing-in-plants-20120213,0,1902141.story

Even if Romney had smooth sailing, I don't think he could match Obama. Obama has what is reported to be the biggest war chest in history. Not surprising since he was married to Wall Street money since '08 and then other industries joined in. Also, the tired old mantra of Republicans calling ANY Democrat in the white house a socialist just doesn't resonate with the average American since they don't see it. I've yet to meet any independent or moderate Republican who thinks Obama is a socialist. Incompetent is the word most often used but not ideologically far left. Romney isn't liked by many in his own party. That's a huge problem. I have a feeling a lot of Republicans will stay home. Romney's only hope is to get a VP who will ignite things and Santorum may do it for him as he brings two huge plusses. 1. His conservatism which may bring out the base and 2. Pennsylvania. Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are HUGE. A Santorum ticket would give him Michigan and Pennsylvania. Romney has a great chance of getting Florida.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/pew-survey-among-republicans-santorum-statistical-dead-heat-190314799.html New Pew survey: Among Republicans, Santorum in statistical dead heat with Romney The Republican base knows Romney will get the nomination but they don't like it. This nomination process is making Romney look weak and vulnerable. Doesn't bode well for a national challenge.

An Obama/Hillary Clinton ticket would win hands down. The Dem base would come out. The downside is that it would also get the Republican base out but the centrists would stick with that ticket I think. Biden won't step down though, he's enjoying being one breath away from the Presidency too much.

The convention could be messy. Ron Paul may have trumped them all. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/46349475#46349475

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/12/sarah-palin-mitt-romney-conservatism_n_1271423.html?ref=politics Sarah Palin On Mitt Romney's Conservatism: 'I'm Not Convinced' For me at least its a positive for Romney. I wouldn't want to see him too conservative and I like the fact that Obama isn't popular with the fringe left as well. Despite what HH would have us believe, Obama is not even close to being the red, pinko, socialist commie he's painted as. The amount of Bush holdovers in his cabinet as well as appointees that are mainstream (Fed Chief, etc.) suggests otherwise. One of the Republican candidates was his Ambassador to China!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/12/house-transportation-bill-rail-drivers_n_1271644.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=321726,b=facebook House Transportation Bill 'Technical Correction' Would Strip Workers Of Pay Protections A little-noted provision in the House Republicans' controversial energy and transportation bill would strip several thousand workers within the rail-industry of their federal minimum-wage and overtime protections, potentially making low-wage jobs pay even less. Listed in the bill under the heading "Technical Correction," provision 6602 would exempt several companies who transport rail workers from their obligations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the 1938 law that guarantees basic worker rights. The carveout would allow a handful of boutique contractors to pay no overtime to their drivers who haul rail workers between worksites, often driving long distances of 300 miles or more… The House's transportation committee, which is chaired by Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) and approved the bill, did not return a request for comment from The Huffington Post. Officials at several of the companies that could potentially benefit from the change -- including Professional Transportation, Inc., RailCrew Express and Coach America -- also did not respond to requests for comment… It isn't merely Democrats who are angered by the transportation plan put forth by House Republicans. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who was a Republican congressman before taking the helm at the department, last week declared it "the worst transportation bill I've ever seen during 35 years of public service," saying it "hollows out" the department's top priority of safety and "guts" the administration's transportation efforts of the last three years. "This is the most partisan transportation bill that I have ever seen," LaHood told Politico. The $260 billion, five-year bill calls for more highways and toll roads to be paid for with offshore drilling. In addition to cutting funding for bike and pedestrian projects, the bill would slash subsidies for Amtrak by 25 percent; privatize food and drink vending on Amtrak trains while guaranteeing such sales with taxpayer money; and substantially increase the size of trucks allowed on roadways, a potential boon for the trucking industry but a change that's opposed by environmental groups. Anytime I see things like this from either party you know some lobby group has paid someone off. Disgusting. Things should be part of a bill or not part of a bill on its own merit, irrespective of the money behind but its the times we live in.

LOL...I saw that article as well. So did a large percentage of blacks. No surprise there. Personally, I would prefer if people voted according to what issues are important to them but it isn't so. For the most part, many people vote their 'group'. Black church members always always vote Democrats. White fundamentals almost always vote Republican. Unions were almost always Democrat for a time but many in the rust belt will vote Republican now, ever since Reagan, so called 'Reagan Democrats'. Its tantamount to a guarantee that California will vote Democrat for President while Alabamans vote Republican. Gays vote Democrat and Mormons vote Republican. Irish-Americans voted for JFK overwhelmingly. Italians voted for the Mondale/Ferarro ticket overwhlemingly. It is what it is.

Heath care in America is nothing short of a crisis situation but because of the religious right in the Republican party, stopping two guys getting married is of higher importance than health care...far higher.

Makes no sense to me either Flash but I guarantee you the AMA and the medical industry have a problem with it. They have successfully sold the BS that America is the only place you can get quality medical care. The run of the mill shit can be done anywhere on the planet pretty much. America still does the extremely difficult stuff (brain surgery, heart surgery, etc.) better than anyone else just about (although there are always new techniques and procedures and experiemental stuff that come out of France, Russia, Germany, etc. every once in a while). I'm a free market guy myself. I have a cousin in Florida who is a surgeon. What we have in America is NOT the free market.

HH, I believe health care, how its distributed and the costs are of the utmost importance to the average person. Almost 2/3 of all personal bankruptcies attributed to health care costs. So many of us are one catostrophic medical condition away from financial meltdown. Health care costs is probably the biggest threat to the American family. What I find disturbing is that the Republicans had to come dragging and kicking to address it. Health care is now part of the national debate but it seems its the Democrats that are the only ones serious about addressing it. We may not like their solutions but at least its being addressed. The Republicans have offered weak solutions. Medical Savings accounts. Talks of 'free market' will reduce costs while totally ignoring that health industry lobby's advantages it gets through successful lobbying efforts which would make free market laughable. The opposition to the so-called Obamacare with the vehemence it was done suggests to me the right would rather have a broken system that destroys families than see a Democrat address it. Any suggests by the right retains the power of the industry. Medical tourism and its rise is a symptom of the problem and how large it is in scope. Big Pharma can make tons of money with medical breakthrough drugs but greed makes them keep the costs of it high. There are stories of small pharma companies being stymied by the large behemoths of bringing their drugs to market. The whole medical system in America is wrought with overly beneficial advantages to the industry, greed, and corruption.

You're absolutely right about unions and the AMA is not a union or guild like the United Auto Workers. The allegation is that the AMA acts like a guild. It does things like lobbying to the government for things that limit its numbers to keep wages higher. Why fight Medicare/Medicaid? Why fight HMOs? Almost without exception, every societal improvement in the way medicine is distributed has been fought by them. Totally antithesis to their hipporatic oath as individuals. If hospitals had their choice they would deny emergency services. The government has to force them to accept emergency patients. What sort of so-called civilized nation would we be if we denied that?

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/ama.htm The Medical-Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex - Corruption in Drug Research and in Medicine Dr. Guylaine Lanctot, M.D. - "The medical establishment works closely with the drug multinationals whose main objective is profits, and whose worst nightmare would be an epidemic of good health. Lots of drugs MUST be sold. In order to achieve this, anything goes: lies, fraud, and kickbacks. Doctors are the principal salespeople of the drug companies. They are rewarded with research grants, gifts, and lavish perks. The principal buyers are the public - from infants to the elderly - who MUST be thoroughly medicated and vaccinated...at any cost! Why do the authorities forbid alternative medicine? Because they are serving the industry, and the industry cannot make money with herbs, vitamins, and homeopathy. They cannot patent natural remedies. That is why they push synthetics. They control medicine, and that is why they are able to tell medical schools what they can and cannot teach.

http://www.blessnews.com/medical-schools/have-medical-schools-been-keeping-the-number-of-students-limited-to-artificially-inflate-the-income-of-doctors Plenty of students who should be able to attend medical school are not allowed to because medical schools only admit a small number of students every year. Why do they not expand? The number of new doctors has remained pretty constant throughout the years. You are absolutely correct! The AMA has been keeping the number of potential new doctors way below the optimum since its founding, as a way to boost the incomes of its members. Think of the AMA as the ultimately powerful labor union, but one that has life-or-death powers over the whole country. If you are a member of the UAW or the SEIU, you don’t have the power of life or death over your neighbors or members of your community, but if you are a member of the AMA, you can restrict the number of new doctors down to such a small number that is would be laughable. comment: Yes. But I don’t think this is a conspiracy among the Medical Schools to reduce capacity and there is no shortage of qualified applicants. The cost of educating them is just very high, especially since professors salaries need to keep up with their peers. The number of new doctors has not remained constant. From 1980-1990 the number of doctors increased by 36% while the population increased by 10%. From 1990-2000 doctors increased by 19% as opposed to total employment of 12%. Currently there is one doctor for every 300 Americans. But the number of primary care physicians has dropped to one in 3000. The AMA, teaching hospitals, and licensing authorities do deliberately restrict the supply of doctors. The cost of malpractice insurance also deters people from becoming doctors and causes them to restrict their clientele and to specialize. In many countries, there are so many primary care doctors, that they don’t earn much more than the average person. They also have different classes of doctors so being a specialist means something special, not just that you are selective in who you want to treat. If the government wanted to increase the number of doctors and reduce the costs, they could offer subsidies to the schools for increasing capacity, and increase scholarships and loan assistance. Over the long-run this would have more impact than insurance subsidies.

The link has some charts that correspond with the excerpt below. http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medical-cartel-why-are-md-salaries-so-high Greg Mankiw features the chart below on physicians’ salaries in the U.S. vs. various European countries and Canada, showing that MDs in the U.S. make about $200,000, which is between 2 and 5 times as much as doctors make in other countries. How do we explain the significantly higher physician salaries in the U.S.? One explanation is the restriction on the number of medical schools, and the subsequent restriction on the number of medical students, and ultimately the number of physicians. Consider the difference between law schools and medical schools. In 1963, there were only 135 law schools in the U.S. (data here), and now there are 200, which is almost a 50% increase over the last 45 years in the number of U.S. law schools. Unfortunately, we’ve witnessed exactly the opposite trend in the number of medical schools. There are 130 medical schools in the U.S. (data here), which is 22% fewer than the number of medical schools 100 years ago (166 medical schools, source), even though the U.S. population has increased by 300%. Consider also that the number of medical students in the U.S. has remained constant at 67,000 for at least the period between 1994 and 2005, according to this report, and perhaps much longer. The charts below tell an interesting story (data here): The number of applicants to medical school keeps going up, by more than 21% between 2003 (34,786) and 2008 (42,231), despite the fact that the number of students admitted has gone up by only about 9% (from 16,538 to 18,036) over that period. Navigate: Home Business The Medical Cartel: Why are MD Salaries So High? The Medical Cartel: Why are MD Salaries So High? By Mark J. Perry Jun 24, 2009, 2:47 PM Author's Website Greg Mankiw features the chart below on physicians’ salaries in the U.S. vs. various European countries and Canada, showing that MDs in the U.S. make about $200,000, which is between 2 and 5 times as much as doctors make in other countries. How do we explain the significantly higher physician salaries in the U.S.? One explanation is the restriction on the number of medical schools, and the subsequent restriction on the number of medical students, and ultimately the number of physicians. Consider the difference between law schools and medical schools. In 1963, there were only 135 law schools in the U.S. (data here), and now there are 200, which is almost a 50% increase over the last 45 years in the number of U.S. law schools. Unfortunately, we’ve witnessed exactly the opposite trend in the number of medical schools. There are 130 medical schools in the U.S. (data here), which is 22% fewer than the number of medical schools 100 years ago (166 medical schools, source), even though the U.S. population has increased by 300%. Consider also that the number of medical students in the U.S. has remained constant at 67,000 for at least the period between 1994 and 2005, according to this report, and perhaps much longer. The charts below tell an interesting story (data here): The number of applicants to medical school keeps going up, by more than 21% between 2003 (34,786) and 2008 (42,231), despite the fact that the number of students admitted has gone up by only about 9% (from 16,538 to 18,036) over that period. Because of the 21% increase in applicants since 2003 for only 9% more openings available in U.S. medical schools, the number of medical school applicants per available opening in medical schools increased from 2.1 in 2003 to 2.34 in 2008 (see chart below). Because of the significant increase in applicants for a much smaller increase in available openings in medical school, the percent of medical school applicants accepted has decreased from 47.5% in 2003 to 42% in 2007, before increasing to 42.7% in 2008 (see chart below). Bottom Line: One reason we might have a “health care crisis†due to rising medical costs, and the world’s highest physician salaries is that we turn away 57.3% of the applicants to medical schools. What we have is a form of a “medical cartel,: which significantly restricts the supply of physicians, and thereby gives its members monopoly power to charge above-market prices for their services. In his classic book Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman describes the American Medical Association (AMA) as the “strongest trade union in the United States†and documents the ways in which the AMA vigorously restricts competition. The Council on Medical Education and Hospitals of the AMA approves both medical schools and hospitals. By restricting the number of approved medical schools and the number of applicants to those schools, the AMA limits the supply of physicians. In the same way that OPEC was able to quadruple the price of oil in the 1970s by restricting output, the AMA has increased their fees by restricting the supply of physicians.