Cleo's Mom

Spread the word. Write a letter to your local paper to promote it. Plus, you can sponsor someone who can go but can't afford it.

Layoffs increase CEO pay Wednesday, September 01, 2010 By Len Boselovic, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Chief executive officers at the 50 companies that announced the biggest layoffs since the recession intensified in late 2008 made 42 percent more last year than the average large company CEO, according to a study released today by a Washington research group. Three Pittsburgh companies made the The Institute for Policy Studies' list, which ranked CEOs based on the number of announced layoffs. Alcoa finished ninth, with 13,985 layoffs; CEO Klaus Kleinfeld's pay was $11.2 million. U.S. Steel placed 23rd, with 6,705 layoffs and CEO John P. Surma's $1.5 million pay. PNC Financial Services Group ranked 28th, with 5,800 layoffs and CEO James E. Rohr's pay of $14.8 million. "Our findings illustrate the great unfairness of the Great Recession," said Sarah Anderson, who co-authored the study. "CEOs are squeezing workers to boost short-term profits and fatten their own paychecks." The Institute for Policy Studies said the average CEO on its list of the 50 layoff leaders made $12 million in 2009 compared to the average $8.5 million that CEOs at S&P 500 companies received. The average CEO on the list announced 10,627 layoffs at his or her company between Nov. 1, 2008, and April 1, 2010, the institute said. The institute identified Schering-Plough CEO Fred Hassan as the highest-paid CEO on the list. His 2009 pay of $49.7 million included a $33 million golden parachute Mr. Hassan received when Merck bought the pharmaceutical company in late 2009, the study said. It cited layoffs of 16,000, including jobs eliminated at both companies as a result of the merger. The 50 CEOs on the list received total compensation of $598 million. That's enough to provide unemployment benefits to 37,759 workers for a year, the institute said. PNC spokesman Fred Solomon said the bank's employment doubled to 56,098 during the period the institute examined as a result of its acquisition of Cleveland's National City Corp. PNC eliminated 5,800 jobs when it combined the staffs of the two operations, much of which was accomplished through attrition, he said. PNC also shed 500 jobs as part of the government-ordered sale of 61 branches in Western Pennsylvania, Mr. Solomon said. Alcoa spokesman Kevin Lowery said the company reduced its head count 38 percent between the second quarter of 2008 and the end of last year because of an unprecedented 60 percent drop in aluminum prices over a three-month period. "Action had to be taken immediately,"(Yeah, how about reducing the CEO pay by 60%? He would have still made 4.5 million - who can't live off that?) Mr. Lowery said. "It's never pleasant to have to lay off people." U.S. Steel declined comment. Mr. Surma took a 20 percent pay cut in mid-2009 and declined grants of restricted stock and options last year that typically account for a hefty portion of a CEO's overall compensation. Only four other CEOs on the list of layoff leaders made less than the $1.5 million Mr. Surma was paid last year. Three of those CEOs came from financial institutions that received assistance as a result of the federal government bank rescue package: Citigroup's Vikram Pandit, former Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis and JPMorgan Chase's James Dimon. These are the CEO's the republicans support and those who were laid off by them - now the unemployed - are the ones some republicans call hobos. But by all means lets vote more of these republicans in.

They say that if you want to know about an organization follow the money. Those who have been following my posts know that I think the tea party is a bunch of phonies. Some may have been duped into joining but it is not a grass roots movement. And remember that those who control the money control the message. So, let's follow the money of this movement. There are three. First of all, Rupert Murdoch. The two others are the Koch brothers (pronounced Coke). You may not have heard of them. They got their start in oil and now in an array of industrial products from Dixie Cups to Lycra. Like other conservatives before them they are opposed to the usual laundry list: taxes, corporate regulations, organized labor, and government "handouts" to the poor, unemployed, ill and elderly. David Koch founded the conservative Americans for Prosperity whose political arm in its Texas branch awarded its Blogger of the Year award to an activist who has called Pres. Obama "cokehead in chief". But remember I was criticized when I said that ground zero for the teabaggers was their hatred of Pres. Obama. David Koch ran for vice president in 1980 on the Libertarian ticket calling for the abolition of social security, federal regualtory agencies, welfare, the FBI, the CIA, and public schools. In other words - any government enterprise that would either inhibit his business profits or increase his taxes. Why does this all sound so familiar? Because the extremists of the republican party are embracing this agenda, starting with Mr. Coppertone himself, John Boehner. As well as Rand Paul, Sharon Angle and Joe Miller. They do this while supporting an agenda for big business, whether on Wall Street or in the Gulf of Mexico, while dismantling fundamental government safety nets designed to protect the unemployed, public health, workplace safety and subsistence to the elderly. These candidates have no trouble with the deficit increasing tax cuts to the rich while calling the $20 billion fund for those affected by the BP oil spill a "shakedown" and "slush fund", oppose extending unemployment benefits, and calls for a freeze on federal regulations in an era when abuses in the oil, financial, mining, big pharma, and even the egg industry are outrageous. If you vote for these people, you are voting against your own economic self-interest. So, if the republicans again gain power, be prepared to be 70 years old and saying "Welcome to WalMart". Some of the above came from a New York Times article by Frank Rich.

Those on the right have selective amnesia. This is what was said by republican Jim DeMint about healthcare last year: "I can almost guarantee you this thing won't pass before August, and if we can hold it back until we go home for a month's break in August," members of Congress will hear from "outraged" constituents, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said on the call, which was organized by the group Conservatives for Patients Rights. "Senators and Congressmen will come back in September afraid to vote against the American people," DeMint predicted, adding that "this health care issue Is D-Day for freedom in America." "If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," he said

From reading posts on this forum for over 2 years it is my belief that many surgeons really are just guessing about what to tell patients about food and nutrition. And I think a lot of time they do a lousy job. They are all over the place. One tells someone they can have gum, pop, a cup of food, snacks, the other says no to all of these and only 1/4 cup of food. And I think the reason for this is that so many jumped on the WLS bandwagon to make money and while their surgical techniques might be okay, their follow up care is often lacking. If a patient is losing over 8 pounds in 4 weeks they shouldn't be given a fill. You are only supposed to lose 1-2 pounds a week. Many doctors take weight loss of patients as some sort of gold star for them. My advice? Count calories and eat the healthy foods that your band can tolerate. Follow the band rules for chewing and not drinking with meals and exercise daily. After all, your body's metabolism with regard to calories in and calories out didn't change because you got a band around your stomach.

Yes, as we speak I am involved in getting people to volunteer to phone bank and canvass for state and local democratic candidates. We want to tap into that enthusiasm and energy people had when they wanted to get bush out. We should never forget the past lest we are condemned to repeat it. I don't know why people think the answer is to go back to the failed policies of bush. What do they think the republicans will do for the economy - specifically job creation? They want to extend the bush tax cuts to the top 2% claiming it will create jobs. Well, these tax cuts have been in place for 10 years. Where are the jobs? They want to complain about the deficit but won't talk about how much this tax cut to the rich is adding to the deficit ($3 trillion over 10 years) They want to repeal healthcare. By all means take us back to the bush healthcare plan: go to the ER. They want to deregulate Wall Street: That worked really well for us investors, didn't it? They want to deregulate mining: That worked really well for those who died in the Massey mine, didn't it? They want to deregulate big oil: That worked really well for the Gulf Coast oil spill, didn't it? From 2000 - 2010 the stock market went from 11,000 point to 10,000 points. A complete wash. No gains and mostly losses. From 2000-2009 - 8 million jobs were lost (most of them from 2007 on). From 2000-2008 - our wages lost earning power, our homes lost value and our investments lost value. the bush decade was the decade of loss. But people expect Pres. Obama and the democrats to wave a magic wand and have it all better in an instant. And 18 months is an instant in terms of economic recovery.

I just saw a poll that said 59% of Americans think Sarah Palin would be ineffective as president. Really? Then why would they vote for republicans this November? Because there isn't a molecule of difference between her views/agenda and the republican's.

It looks like this November the voters will reward those who got us in this economic mess - the republicans - and punish those who are digging us out of it - the democrats. Fine. Then the republicans will own the problems and the day after they are sworn in I will develop these voters' mindset. But I will be more patient. Instead of expecting 8 million jobs to be created by January 21, 2009 like they did with Pres. Obama, I will give the republicans until February 1, 2011.

Finally a rally for the rest of us: [/url] IMPORTANT: October 2nd: A DC March for US! (With some more info) Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 03:56:53 PM PDT How many of us have been saying, "Where is our giant DC rally?" My fellow Kossacks, I have the answer. I was surfing around my union's web page (uft.org) and I see this little "Action Alert": March in Washington on Oct. 2! Huh? Really? Well, I click the link and sure enough, finally, it seems there is a real, meaningful DC march and rally for us- the normal people. No promises of miracles, no overpriced gold coins, no stealing and distortion of our nation's heritage. A rally for what this country is really about. More over the jump. This is the first I've heard of this, so if it has been diaries before, my apologies. There is to be a press conference on Broadway on Wednesday, at Bowling Green. (The Bull Statue.) Under the title of One Nation Working Together, this event has a big list of sponsors: Some of the big ones: The AFL-CIO, the NAACP, SEIU, PowerPAC.org, Green for All, The Leadership Conference, and several dozen more.

Here's a sarcastic article about bush's connection and appointment of this Imam: And here’s where the rubber meets the road-side bomb: George Bush totally was hanging out with this Imam guy! Like, all the time! And so was his BFF Karen Hughes! No, seriously. What Hughes neglected to say is that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (the crazy man behind this 9/11 Mosque of Terrorism and Death) was dispatched by George W. Bush, Compassionate Conservative-in-Chief, as the ambassador of goodwill for Islam. GW sent Rauf and Hughes on a global speaking tour to talk about Islam in America and how we can’t blame all Muslims for the acts of a few crazy Muslims: If one were to hearken back to the halcyon days of the Bush Administration, one would remember that, when Bush adviser Karen Hughes was appointed Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, the Bush Administration saw improving America’s standing among Muslims abroad as a part of its national security strategy. And, as such, Hughes set up listening tours, attended meetings and worked with interfaith groups that — shocking, by today’s Republican standards — included actual Muslims. One of those people was Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Contemporary press accounts indicate that Rauf and Hughes were part of the February 2006 U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar. He was part of a delegation that met with her in March 2006 and held a joint press conference. A letter to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in November 2007 indicates that contacts with Hughes and Under Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns had continued apace. So there you have it, 68%. If any of you voted for Bush and/or still admire him, you should know that he makes a habit of palin’ around with terrorists. Not just “palin’ around”1 with them, but actually appointing them to speak FOR AMERICA.

I agree and if you've been reading my posts on all the threads you'll see that I seldom make emotional posts. I prefer to deal with facts. So much of the hate radio coming from the right is just filled with emotion, fear, lies, distortion, etc.. and I find it frustrating that people buy into that. You seem like a smart guy, bob, and I know how you feel about Muslims. But at the end of this discussion what the people want is for the Muslims to say - "We're sorry, we'll move. We shouldn't have even considered it." You and I both know that's not going to happen. So what is the solution? Torch the building? They threw a fire bomb on the mosque that was being built in Tennessee. And wrote "Not Welcome" on the signs saying the mosque was being built there. So are all mosques no longer welcome? Anywhere? Where does it end? I try to look at issues and be reasonable and look at the problem and solutions. And the facts. So, what are the solutions to this mosque issue? I've offered one. But it was ridiculed. I don't see any other solutions offered.

What a joke! :cursing: You want people to respect your biased views? Only other biased people would - maybe those teabaggers who wore those "racist and proud of it" tee shirts would. Most people aren't proud of being biased or racist, but we've seen the kind who are. And just like other posters who say they're done posting here - you'll be back.

I have been posting about this issue for almost 2 years. Too many people depend on the band being too tight to lose weight. They suffer with pain, reflux, heartburn, pbing, vomiting, etc.. and accept it as the price to pay for losing weight and they are afraid to have a unfill for fear of gaining weight. They can't eat solid foods in the morning and sometimes until evening. If you had been told this at your seminar - that you wouldn't be able to eat solid food until evening - would you have gotten the band? They do this at their own peril for all the reasons you posted. Plus constant reflux can cause esophageal cancer over years.

Real estate deals are feeble and ignorant? Everyone has their price. This is a private business owner who has complied with the zoning laws and your NYC commission has given them the green light. He has the constitutional right to build this center at this location. Those who don't like it can offer to buy him out. That's a business transaction. But this isn't about WHERE the mosque is - it's about what it is and who is building it. By all mean, please stick to the other forums. Your comments reveal your bias.

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama blasted Senate Republicans on Monday for blocking a small-business assistance bill, calling their opposition "pure partisan politics." The country needs a "full-scale attack" on economic sluggishness, he said at the White House. "While we have taken a series of measures and come a long way ... too many Americans are still looking for work, and too many communities are far from being whole again," he said. The president also said his economic team is "hard at work" on a series of new measure designed both to spark short-term hiring and lay the foundation for long-term economic growth. Among other things, Obama said the administration will continue to push for an extension of middle class tax cuts, new incentives for clean energy research and development, and initiatives to help rebuild infrastructure. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, released a statement immediately after Obama's remarks criticizing the president and Democratic congressional leaders for dramatically increasing the size of the national debt while doing little to restore stronger economic growth. "Instead of growing jobs as promised, Washington Democrats have grown the size of the national debt, the federal government and the unemployment rate," McConnell said. "It's no surprise that most Americans think the country is on the wrong track and that Democrat policies have failed to do anything to fix their top concern, the economy." Growing economic jitters amid new signs of a slow recovery remain a top political issue in the runup to November's midterm elections. The U.S. economy sputtered to a near stop in the second quarter, according to estimates from the government released Friday, although the slowdown wasn't as bad as many had feared. The nation's gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, was revised sharply lower to an annual growth rate of 1.6 percent in the three months ending in June. The initial reading had been for a 2.4 percent growth rate in the period. The bill currently stuck in the Senate authorizes the creation of a $30 billion lending fund. The Treasury Department would run the program, which would deliver cheap capital to community banks, defined as those with less than $10 billion in total assets. The idea is that community banks are the ones that do the bulk of lending to small businesses and so by pumping capital into them, it will get in the hands of Main Street businesses. Other key components of the bill would provide $12 billion worth of tax relief for small businesses between 2010 and 2020, according to an estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation. The bill also increases Small Business Administration loan limits and extends loan sweeteners through the end of the year. It offers several tax cuts for small businesses, to both encourage investment and entrepreneurship. The legislation also provides $1.5 billion in grants to state lending programs that can't rely on depleted state coffers for more cash. This bill is paid for and doesn't add to the deficit. The republicans are always yapping about small business but when they have a chance to vote for this bill they don't. More evidence that they just want the economy to get worse to improve their chances in November. How very sad that some will be duped to voting for these people. And to Mitch - I have this to say: This is the best you've got? Pres. Obama slams you for holding up this bill even for a vote and all you can do is say the democrats have increased the deficit? Hey, Mitch, why don't you tell us how much the deficit will increase with that unnecessary tax cut for the rich you support? Huh? What's that I hear? The silence is deafening.

I did find this out. File it under my previous comment: Money talks and fox listens. Fox News shareholder funded ‘Ground Zero mosque’ imam: report By Raw Story Saturday, August 21st, 2010 -- 7:02 pm The second largest shareholder in News Corp. -- the parent company of Fox News -- has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to causes linked to the imam planning to build a Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan, says a report from Yahoo! News.According to the report from Yahoo!'s John Cook, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who owns seven percent of News Corp., "has directly funded [imam Feisal Abdul] Rauf's projects to the tune of more than $300,000." Cook reports that Prince Al-Waleed's personal charity, the Kingdom Foundation, donated $305,000 to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, a project sponsored by two of Rauf's initiatives, the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative, which is building the Manhattan mosque. That Fox News' second-largest shareholder, after Rupert Murdoch, has financial links to the "Ground Zero mosque" will be seen as ironic by critics of the news network, who have watched with chagrin as the network's talking heads attempt to link the mosque to radical Islamism. Last week, Daily Show host Jon Stewart lambasted Fox panelist Eric Bolling's attempt to link the Cordoba Initiative to Hamas and Iran. Stewart used News Corp.'s connections to Prince Al-Waleed, and the prince's connections to the Carlyle Group and Osama bin Laden to make a tongue-in-cheek argument that Fox News may be a "terrorist command center." Story continues below... "Stewart didn't need to take all those steps to make the connection," Cook writes. Cook also reports that Prince Al-Waleed has in the past funded a number of Islamic organizations that have been maligned by Fox News commentators: Al-Waleed donated $500,000 to the Council on American-Islamic Relations — which has been repeatedly denounced on Fox News's air by Geller and others as a terror group — in 2002. Indeed, Rauf's "numerous ties to CAIR" alone have been cited by the mosque's opponents as a justification for imputing terrorist sympathies to him, yet few people seem to be asking whether Murdoch's extensive multi-billion business collaboration with the man who funds both Rauf and CAIR merits investigation or concern. Other beneficiaries of Al-Waleed's largess include the Islamic Development Bank, a project designed to "foster the economic development and social progress of [Muslims] in accordance with the principles of Shari'ah." The IDB funds the construction of mosques around the world, and has been implicated by frequent Fox News guest Stephen Schwartz in an attempt to spread radical Wahhabism (a fundamentalist branch of Islam) throughout the United States. Cook notes that it was none other than News Corp.'s New York Post that reported on Prince Al-Waleed's donation to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow. He reports that Fox News had no comment for his article, and emails to the prince's Kingdom Foundation were not returned. Prince Al-Waleed owns an estimated $2.5-billion-worth of News Corp. Majority shareholder Rupert Murdoch recently took a stake in the prince's Middle East-based media conglomerate, Rotana Group. Murdoch and Prince Al-Waleed are reportedly working on launching an Arabic news network that will compete with existing pan-Arabic networks Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya. (Editor's note: Original article's headline incorrectly referred to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal as co-owner rather than the second largest shareholder.)

I could be wrong but I think they already own this building and have been using it weekly as a mosque already. They just want to expand the building - make it 13 stories to add the other parts - the swimming pool, library, theatre, community center. I don't think they intentionally bought this building (whenever the current owner bought it) to be 2 blocks from ground zero to make any kind of statement. I just think - like most real estate transactions in NYC - it was opportunity meets price.

Republicans are very happy to have your attention on the mosque issue or immigration in Arizona so that you don't delve too deeply into their plan to dismantle America as we know it. They want to hand over our social security to the trustees on Wall Street - that should be comforting to all since they did such a good job with our 401(k)s. They want to repeal healthcare. By all means let's go backward on that. Let the insurance abuses continue. They want to cut spending for social programs but not defense. They want to cut off unemployment extensions while going further into debt to extend tax cuts for the top 2% of wage earners. When we're all riding on unpaved streets in the dark because communities can't afford the upkeep of paved streets or street lights, when grandma is sleeping in your livingroom because there is no more medicaid for nursing home care, when you will have to save big bucks to send your kids to for-profit schools because public schools will be gone, we will ask ourselves how we got there. And the answer will be because we weren't paying attention to the important issues that will impact our lives every day. And we thought the republicans would have the answers (didn't we see their answers in the disastrous 8 years of bush?) because the democrats weren't able to create 8 million jobs in 2 years. But, hey, I'm sure with all those tax cuts to the millionaires, the jobs should just start pouring in. I mean it's worked so well for the last 10 years, wouldn't you say?

I have an idea. Why don't the NYC people who are opposed to this mosque start a non-profit foundation - call it the NO-MO (No Mosque) foundation and accept donations from the 65% of Americans who oppose this?* If we just use the figures that half our population is adults (around 155 million) and 65% oppose the mosque that would be a little over 100 million and if each of those put their money where their mouth is (say $5 each) then this foundation could raise enough money (over $500 million) to buy this building where the mosque is to be built. Isn't that the American way? Money talks. They say everyone has their price. So why not set up this foundation, collect the donations and then buy out this building? Then the foundation, which would own it, could make it anything it wanted. It would probably have to be a non-profit endeavor - set up so that future sales of the building would go to another non-profit, etc.. So maybe they could make it another christian worship site or another memorial to 9/11 or a free health clinic. * There probably is already a non-profit 9/11 fund for families of victims that might still be active. I'm sure some savvy attorney could tweak it so that it could do the fundraising for this.

I couldn't find the article. Why don't you cut and paste it?

It's not that I'm sympathetic to any particular group. If someone is here illegally then that is a law enforcement issue. But when we start singling out specific groups to target then it diminishes us as a country. Our statue of liberty says to give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free. If we start to restrict that to who that means (only white, christian europeans, for example) then it sends a message to the terrorists that they have won. The terrorist and Al-Qaeda can't destroy us by destroying our buildings but they can if they turn this country into a country divided with hate everywhere and that's where it's headed. Every conservative talk radio is about hate. That is how they will destroy us - so that we no longer would be the country that stands for freedom for all, equality for all, religious freedom, etc... And when then do that they can sit back and say they've won. And then we will be like them. Because they hate everyone and are exclusive and have no equality or freedoms. And they would never let a christian church be built in Saudi Arabia.

Newsweek Study: If GOP policies were adopted, we'd be much worse off economically! Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 02:11:36 AM PDT Hi. I'm no diary meistro and don't really care about all that. But I did want to link you all to a Newseek study, using CBO evaluations of 11 different proposals to create jobs and stimulate the economy. A GOP vs Obama Administration, economic policies study comparison. What they found was that if the GOP was free to apply the policies they have proposed, we would have 2.3 to something like 3.3 Million fewer jobs and a $371 Billion bigger national debt! They also take down that conflating thing the GOP does non-stop, where they claim if the top tax rate is raised to 39%, it will be a jobs killer. What the CBO found is that only 2% of small business owners fall into the over $250,000 a year income level. So NO! Taxing them will NOT impact small business job creation. Plus a host of other assessments worth slapping your local wingnut with. Enjoy! http://www.newsweek.com/... Here is a slice of the assessment: On jobs, it's a similar story. So far, Republicans have only said they'd do—or that they would've done—two large-scale things the Democrats haven't: (1) scrap the stimulus, and (2) extend the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 so as not to (in Boehner's words) "impose job-killing tax hikes on families and small businesses." How would these measures affect employment? Regarding the stimulus, the answer is pretty clear. In a report out this week, the CBO estimates that between 1.4 million and 3.3 million fewer people would be employed right now if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act had never made it through Congress. Split the difference, and the pro-stimulus Obama moves ahead of the anti-stimulus GOP by about 2.35 million jobs. (A more dramatic estimate by the economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi [a McCain 2008 adviser] puts the number at 2.7 million, but we'll stick with the CBO stats for now.) The effect of tax cuts on job creation is a little trickier to tally. Extending all of them, according to the CBO, would lower unemployment by 0.3 to 0.8 percent over the next year or so; extending them solely for people making less than $250,000 would produce a somewhat smaller effect, for a difference of roughly 200,000 to 500,000 people. The problem, as economist William G. Gale of the Brookings Institution has noted, is that "of 11 potential stimulus policies the CBO recently examined, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts ties for lowest bang for the buck." In fact, he continues, "letting the high-income tax cuts expire and using the money for aid to the states, extensions of unemployment insurance benefits, [or] tax credits favoring job creation ... would have about three times the impact ... as continuing the Bush tax cuts." In addition, it's unlikely that extending the cuts for the richest Americans would have much of an effect on small-business hiring, which is a claim that Republicans make with some regularity. Why? Because of the taxpayers that report running small businesses on their taxes, only 2 percent fall into the top two income brackets.* The other 98 percent of small-business owners make less than $250,000 a year and wouldn't pay higher taxes under Obama's plan. History isn't on the GOP's side, either. If keeping the top marginal tax rate at 35 percent—the rate under Bush, and the rate that Republicans are fighting to preserve—spurs so much hiring, why didn't America experience any job growth at all during Bush's time in office? dailykos

food for thought: Sacred ground for Muslims Jen Phillips in Mother Jones finds "the righteous outrage of those contending the former World Trade Center site is 'hallowed ground' amusing, because they have no idea just how right they are. "Before the World Trade Center was even designed (with Islamic architectural elements, incidentally), the ground was indeed sacrosanct: The bones of some 20,000 African slaves are buried 25 feet below Lower Manhattan. As at least 10 percent of West African slaves in America were Muslims, it's not out of bounds to extrapolate that ground zero itself was built on the bones of at least a few Muslim slaves. That is to say, hallowed Muslim ground."

This letter writer makes some very good points - some of which I've made before: SS confusion In the Aug. 22 Forum piece "Doctrine Heir," columnist Amity Shlaes compiles a disorganized list of irrelevant information that is designed more to confuse than to enlighten. Social Security is a very simple system. Payroll taxes are collected and go into a Social Security trust fund (now valued at $2.5 trillion). After people retire, they draw a monthly payment from the trust fund as long as they live. The trust fund is kept in the form of government bonds. The government must eventually pay this money back to the Social Security system, just as it must eventually pay back China or any other creditor. As things stand, Social Security will be able to pay all benefits until 2037, and after that it will be able to continue to pay 78 percent of benefits. These are undisputed facts from the report of the trustees. And this very far off event can be pushed much further into the future by small changes to the system now, such as having high-income workers contribute a little bit more. This op-ed is just a small volley in a sustained and determined effort to kill or drastically change Social Security. There are many reasons behind this effort. One is that Wall Street is salivating at the prospect of getting its hands on the Social Security trust fund. Another factor is that Social Security is a highly successful and popular example of government intervention, and it's one of the few programs remaining from the New Deal. This clear refutation of "the government is the problem" is highly annoying to conservatives. So the strategy is to obscure and confuse and obfuscate, and this op-ed piece is a perfect example of this.