Cleo's Mom

If you allow the government to have control over a woman's uterus and the potential embryo it might hold, then what is to stop the government from mandating that they have control over the viable organs in a dead's person's body and extract them for organ donation to save another's life? Isn't this all about saving lives? Wouldn't that be pro-life? Wouldn't that be keeping another life from dying? It seems like it's a slippery slope from controlling a living uterus to controlling viable organs in a dead body. I mean if a woman doesn't have a choice as to whether to continue the "life" in her uterus, then why should she have a choice as to whether her organs can be used to continue another life? If the government can tell a woman what she can and can't do with her uterus when she's alive, what's to stop them from controlling what can be done to her organs when she's dead?

Rank the Presidents...yeah dems! Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:47:25 PM PDT Presidential Rankings can be found here. An interesting survey was done for the fifth time by 283 presidential scolars. Below are that results that I found interesting, in no particular order. FDR is number 1. Beginning with: President Obama: was rated 15th, scored 6th in imagination, 7th in communication ability, 8th in intelligence and scored low on background (family, education and experience). Not too shabby. President Clinton: moved up from 18th to 13th. President George H.W. Bush: remained at 22nd President Reagan: dropped from 16th to 18th. He remains highly regarded for his luck, party leadership, communications ability, relationship with congress and his leadership ability. Hmmm, ranked on luck? Who knew! President Carter: dropped from 25th to 32nd. Rated 7th for integrity. President Ford: held at 28th President Nixon: 26th to 30th President Johnson: fell from 15th to 16th, rated number 1 for his relationship with congress. (how else could a president get Medicare through?) President Kennedy: climbed from 14th to 11th, 4th in communication, 7th in imagination (which is 1 behind Obama)...interesting President Eisenhower: 10th, for the last 2 surveys, and we all know that if he were here today, he'd be a Democrat. President Truman: dropped from 7th to 9th And last but not least, (well actually, ya, he came out the least) President Bush (W): 1n 2002 he was 23rd, in this survey he has dropped to 39th, which places him in the bottom five. I would humbly suggest that the Democrats have done us proud !You betcha

It has been addressed (this is only ONE example) And yes, I am proud of Pres. Obama for doing so : The Obama administration has asked bailed-out insurance company American International Group to reduce almost $200 million in future retention payments after their bonus fiasco last spring, a government watchdog reported today. Here is another example: Seven institutions have received “exceptional financial assistance” under TARP. In addition to being subject to TARP rules generally, as noted above, the pay of top executives at an institution receiving “exceptional financial assistance” is subject to direct control by the Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation, Kenneth Feinberg.

There's no way I am going to AGH. I live in Westmoreland County. I will go to Forbes in Monroeville if need be. Forbes is part of the Alle-West Hospital system. If I can't go there then I will try to switch doctors to someone at Magee.

Just a heads up to all Dr. Urbandt's patients: The ER at West Penn Hospital is going to close in January 2011. Bariatric program will still be at West Penn but I don't know where ER patients will go.

People that vote republican do so against their own economic self interest. The republicans haven't done one thing for the middle class. I don't know what they expect the republicans to do for them. But Mr. Coppertone (Boehner) wants to raise the social security retirement age to 70 to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Now there's a plan. Hey orange-man - take that message around to the people, especially those nearing retirement and see how it sells. If people vote for republicans for the social wedge issues then I have this advice: don't have an abortion, arm yourself to the teeth and make sure no one in your family is gay and then vote democratic.

Here is my advice to you: 1) Call and if need be, write (certified mail) to your surgeon and request all test results, including operative report and follow up visit reports. 2) Call the patient advocate at the hospital where you had the surgery and tell them you want to see the surgeon and his office won't allow you. 3) If that doesn't work, call the hospital adminstrator. If necessary, tell them you will go to the media if they don't cooperate. You need to see the surgeon and maybe have tests done to see if you're still filled and that there aren't any other problems, like slippage, dilation, etc.. Do not accept this treatment and good luck.

Proof: Trickle Down Didn't Help, It Harmed 90% of Americans Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 07:03:13 AM PDT Here's another tool to put in your arsenal to dispel the GOP disinformation. FACTS. (Neocons don't deal in facts, just lies and fear mongering) The 2001-2007 expansion outperformed the average post-World War II expansion in only one area: Corporate profits, which grew much more rapidly than average. The evidence on the 2001-2007 expansion provides no support for the claim that the tax cuts generated especially robust economic growth. http://www.cbpp.org/... For more proof that the GOP touted wonder of Trickle Down was bad for wages and jobs, drop and check out the chart. Worst period for workers since WWII! For six of the seven indicators, the average annual growth rate between 2001 and 2007 was below the average growth rate for the comparable periods of other post-World War II economic expansions. Notably, this expansion was among the weakest since World War II with respect to both overall economic growth and growth in fixed non-residential investment. These two indicators should have captured any positive “growth effects” of the tax cuts. The labor market also was weaker during the 2001-2007 expansion. Both employment growth and wage and salary growth were weaker during this expansion as a whole than in any prior expansion since the end of World War II. The 2001-2007 expansion outperformed the average post-World War II expansion in only one area: corporate profits, which grew much more rapidly than average. http://www.cbpp.org/... During this same period the top 1% of Americans enjoyed the same huge gains in income of 70% they did in the 1920s. Is it any wonder our present Depression.....ahem...Recession looks just like it did in the 1930s? Piketty and Saez’s unique data series on income inequality, based on IRS files, is particularly valuable because it provides detailed information on income gains at the top of the income scale and extends back to 1913. The new data show: 2007 marked the fifth straight year in which income gains at the top outpaced those among the rest of the population. From 2002 to 2007, the average inflation-adjusted income of the top 1 percent of households rose 62 percent, compared to 4 percent for the bottom 90 percent of households (see Table 1). So, once again the FACTS dispel the LIES. Trickle down was a ruse to enrich the top 1% of our population. This article is one of the most complete and frankest articles on the debacle we are in I have found to date. Grand Theft America by Stephen Lendman http://baltimorechronicle.com/... GET THE FACTS ABOUT TRICKLE DOWN OUT THERE so the lies can be dispelled, and people can see the facts for themselves. Go Team DKos! Oh, a bit of comic relief (thanks to royalscam) It's funny because it's true. (source: reddit.com) This is the republican economic plan - the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer until we have a two class system and guess which one they'll be in? And these are the people who some want to elect more of?

I don't shop at Walmart but my tax dollars still go to subsidize them in the form of corporate welfare: What Walmart Costs Us in Corporate Welfare 　 Due to low pay and lack of health care, Wal-Mart employees are eligible for federal assistance. The estimated total amount of federal assistance for which Wal-Mart employees were eligible in 2004 was $2.5 billion ("Harper's Index," Harper's Magazine, Vol. 310, No. 1858, 3/2005) According to a study by the Institute for Labor and Employment at the University of California-Berkeley, California taxpayers subsidized $20.5 million worth of medical care for Wal-Mart in that state alone.[sylvia Chase, "The True Cost of Shopping at Wal-Mart," Now with Bill Moyers, Transcript (December 19, 2003).] In fact, Wal-Mart personnel offices, knowing employees cannot afford the company health plan, actually encourage employees to apply for charitable and public assistance, according to a recent report by the PBS news program Now With Bill Moyers. Public Subsidies. For instance, the Southern California Association of Governments calculated that the Southern California wage multiplier was 2.08, meaning that for every $1 reduction in wages, the community lost an additional $1.08 in indirect impacts. The study done in Southern California calculated that, if area grocery workers were paid Wal-Mart wages, more than $1.6 to $3 billion per year would be lost ("The Impact of Big Box Stores in S. California," Dr. Marlon Boarnet). It is common for Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation, to expect and receive taxpayer-backed subsidies for building stores and distribution centers ("Millions in subsidies paid for Wal-Mart jobs", Palm Beach Post, 8/30/2003). Economic development through taxpayer-backed incentives is a questionable policy. In fact, the National Governor's Association passed a resolution stating that "The Governors believe that the public and private sectors should undertake cooperative efforts that result in improvements to the general economic climate rather than focus on subsidies for individual projects and companies." After conducting its own study, the Palm Beach Post reported that Wal-Mart has directly received at the minimum $150 million in direct incentives from municipal, county, state, and even federal governments to open 47 distribution centers in 32 states. The Palm-Beach Post reports that this figure is only a start--- and likely grows by tens of millions when less quantifiable breaks such as government bond financing and enterprise zones are taken into account (Palm Beach Post, 8/30/2003). For example, the Palm-Beach Post reports that in Lewiston, Maine, provided Wal-Mart with $17 million in state and local incentives in February 2002 for a 400,000-square-foot food distribution center that is to employ 150 workers when it opens in 2005. The incentive package included free land and Water and sewer improvements (Palm Beach Post, 8/30/2003). For more information on taxpayer-backed subsidies and corporate accountability, visit Good Jobs First at Good Jobs First. The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year - about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers: $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families. $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3% of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family. $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children. $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children. $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify. $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance. _Wal-Mart freely acknowledges shifting its health care costs to taxpayers and responsible employers. A company spokesman said, "[Wal-Mart employees] who chose not to participate in [Wal- Mart's health plan] usually get their health care benefits from...the state or federal government" (UPI, 12/2/98). 　 　

Choosing to buy a competitor's product or service is one thing, my tax dollars going to corporate welfare is another thing. I don't want my tax dollars going to corporations so they can provide golden parachutes for their greedy CEO's.

Here's some reality about those poor corporations that you always defend, pattygreen, and who suffer so because of the big, bad government and all those taxes that they have to pay and then pass onto us: ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated) Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS: Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein notes that, despite benefiting from corporate welfare in the U.S., Exxon complains about paying high taxes, claiming that it threatens energy innovation research. Pat Garofalo at the Wonk Room notes that big corporations’ tax shelter practices similar to Exxon’s shift a $100 billion annual tax burden onto U.S. taxpayers. In fact, in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”

The federal government is giving out golden parachutes? Where do I sign up?:ohmy: Where did I say I wanted the government to give golden parachutes? It was you who claimed that no one in the private sector gets cushy pensions. WRONG. Negotiating a pension plan or retirement plan is perfectly legitimate in the public sector. You are just SO anti-government that you can't see that giving an employee a salary, benefits and a retirement plan (that they pay into) is all part of doing business. And fair. And anyone who believes that the grass is greener should quit their private sector job and apply for a government job. Government workers are people too and they are productive workers and they pay taxes and are consumers of good and services, but like the poor who receive gov't aid and that you bash regulary, they are easy targets. And your statement that you can't tell a private business what to do is EXACTLY why we need more government regulations and why we needed a public option for healthcare. When the government runs something, you have representation, you can call your senators or congressman and tell them what you like and don't like. With private industry (unless you're a voting shareholder) you have no say. But that doesn't mean our taxes don't support that business. They do - in the form of corporate welfare, which I have posted on here many times.

from pattygreen:"(Why should the taxpayer continue to pay the superintendant of schools $70,000. a year (1/2 his annual salary) AFTER he retires, till he dies? Noone in the private sector has such a benefit to his job, yet the government feels their employees are deserving of this extra treat!)" You said no one in the private sector has such a benefit (you didn't clarify that to mean private superintendents) but below shows you that they do get big bucks. But why should you even refer to what someone in private schools makes in comparison to a public school superintendent when you say you don't care what private businesses do with their money? You want to have it both ways. In 2005, the board of trustees at the Horace Mann School—one of the city's most rigorous, prestigious prep schools—was conducting a national search for a new headmaster. The long-serving head of school, Eileen Mullady, was moving to Southern California after a decade at the institution. To fill the privileged position, the board chose Tom Kelly, a young, plump, bespectacled man, whom they scooped up from his post as a superintendent of schools in Valhalla, N.Y. Kelly, famous among Horace Mann teachers for his suspenders and the Polo cologne that wafts from his clothes, immediately rubbed some long-suffering faculty the wrong way. "He bragged to the faculty about the pay cut he took to come here," says one former Horace Mann teacher. Kelly's boast of selflessness didn't fly when faculty learned that he had earned $299,958 in 2006, plus a $9,703 expense account and a $22,766 contribution toward his pension. Kelly also lives for free in a Tudor-style mansion across the street from the school's 18-acre campus. "When Tom came, the trustees were in the process of the cutting the faculty's health benefits," says the teacher. "Tom didn't understand how to talk to faculty about money

See the red? - that bush and his recession and his job losses. See the blue? that's when it starts to turn around, job losses are fewer and then we get to positive job growth DUE TO OBAMA'S STIMULUS So - recession under bush - recovery under Obama So to say that the recession (deficit) is Obama's IS A LIE!!

Nice try. But bush owns the recession. It started in December 2007 and we lost 8 million jobs from then to Feb. 2009. Pres. Obama has helped us get out of the recession by the stimulus and have gone from monthly job losses to job gains. But only a neocon would be opposed to that or all the other positive signs of economic recovery. While it is the job of the federal government to protect us, it is not the job of the federal government to engage in an unnecessary war, invading a soverign country with a pre-emptive attack and causing 4000+ to die and having no funds to pay for this war. The unnecessary invasion of a country is not "military defense". It's military offense.

That is just not true. The bailout, which bush started, prevented the collapse of the banking system. Our economy runs on the availability of money from banks, from payrolls to loans. And the banks have paid the money back with interest, so how did that bankrupt us. But I do agree that there should not be any banks too big to fail. Break them down and regulate, baby, regulate.

The above posts shows how bush's policies and agenda have impacted the CURRENT DEFICIT. To those who keep yapping about all of Obama's spending - they should consider: 1) The bank bailouts started under bush and have been repaid with interest 2) The stimulus has added only a small amount to the current deficit 3) The recession is responsible for about 40% of the current deficit and the way to end the recession IS TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY - so spending on the economy will actually help REDUCE THE DEFICIT. You can see that the stimulus and Obama's agenda only make up a small part of the overall deficit - so to those who keep yapping about all this Obama spending* (that they claim adds "so much" to the deficit) - unless you can document what exactly that is - then shut up. *Obama spending has to be spending that is not for bush's policies, not for the wars, etc..and not for mandated programs that have always existed. It has to be just Obama spending and it has to be shown to make a substantial impact on the deficit.

Deficit Hawks, Please Explain This Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:29:52 AM PDT http://www.cbpp.org/... Why not pound this fact home over and over and over again. The very people that are calling the unemployed "funemployed" are enjoying the very same tax cuts that sunk us into deficit spending and who beat the war drums that also played/play a major role in creating/increasing our deficits. http://www.warresisters.org/... 11% General Government, how much smaller can government get? You wouldn't know it was only this small % by listening to all the yapping done by the republicans, teabaggers and other neocons. The GOP policies caused the deficit and prolongs long-term unemployment. We need to call them on their lies 24/7. (I do my part) The first chart above is from a 2004 report by the Center for Budget and Priorities Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes... Executive Summary The Bush Administration has stood in favor of tax cuts through thick and thin. In the midst of a booming economy and large projected budget surpluses, President Bush’s top economic policy initiative — both as a candidate in 2000 and upon taking office — was to cut taxes. When the economy slowed, the Bush Administration’s response also was dominated by tax cuts. Now, in the face of yawning deficits and its own pledge to reduce them, the Administration has again put forward large, permanent tax cuts as part of its most recent budget. Emphasis, mine. IMO, this chart demonstrates that tax cuts increase the deficit because we know who implemented the tax cuts: Reagan and Bush II ibid. And that Trickle Down Theory, Bogus! During the Bush administration, the country had the weakest economic expansion since WWII For six of the seven indicators, the average annual growth rate between 2001 and 2007 was below the average growth rate for the comparable periods of other post-World War II economic expansions. Notably, this expansion was among the weakest since World War II with respect to both overall economic growth and growth in fixed non-residential investment. These two indicators should have captured any positive “growth effects” of the tax cuts. The labor market also was weaker during the 2001-2007 expansion. Both employment growth and wage and salary growth were weaker during this expansion as a whole than in any prior expansion since the end of World War II. The 2001-2007 expansion outperformed the average post-World War II expansion in only one area: corporate profits, which grew much more rapidly than average. Conclusion: Republicans bad for economy, good for corporate profits. So true, so very, painfully true. The true cause of our deficits is reported by The Center on budget and Policy Priorities. The GOP lies are exposed. The events and policies that have pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term, however, were largely outside the new Administration’s control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. While President Obama inherited a dismal fiscal legacy, that does not diminish his responsibility to propose policies to address our fiscal imbalance and put the weight of his office behind them. Although policymakers should not tighten fiscal policy in the near term while the economy remains fragile, they and the nation at large must come to grips with the nation’s long-term deficit problem. But we should not mistake the causes of our predicament. Here's a chart from the same source article, dated 1/17/2010 as the above quote: http://www.cbpp.org/... One more time: THE BUSH TAX CUTS AND THE WARS CREATED THE DEFICITS, THE RECESSION MADE THEM A BIT WORSE.

from pattygreen:"(Why should the taxpayer continue to pay the superintendant of schools $70,000. a year (1/2 his annual salary) AFTER he retires, till he dies? Noone in the private sector has such a benefit to his job", Company Focus You're fired. Here's your $16 million. Multimillion-dollar severance packages for lousy executives are more than just outrageous. They also provide critical clues about a company's board, its stock and its future. By Michael Brush While many Americans are cashing their final unemployment checks and wondering how theyll pay next months bills, the top brass at our nations biggest companies could hardly pick a better time to be laid off. Chief executives leaving S&P 500 companies pocketed a cool $16.5 million on average in the past two years on the way out the door. And there's little sign yet that the going rate for executive departure has come down. That $16.5 million doesnt even count juicy perks like gold-plated pension plans, rich stock option grants, health benefits, or use of corporate jets and company secretaries. These goodies can bump up the value of the typical executive severance package by an additional 50%. The biggest potential prize on the horizon? That would go to Robert Nardelli, who could collect more than $82 million for leaving Home Depot (HD, news, msgs). Critical clues about a company If youre tempted to dismiss these opulent severance packages as just another holdover from the era of corporate greed, dont. There is a valuable investing intelligence in all this, too. Juicy severance packages often tell you a board isnt riding management hard enough. Lax oversight can mean a board doesnt care much about what should be its main task -- looking out for shareholders. If so, guess what happens to the stock? It sinks. When executives can negotiate an excessive severance package, it suggests the board has no control over shareholder funds, says Paul Hodgson, a researcher at the Corporate Library, a group that advocates stronger board oversight of companies so that shareholders can benefit. Just a few examples. I will file this under other incorrect things you have posted like: -insurance companies can't drop you if you get sick -the violence in the tea party was all in my head -the IRS will have to hire 16,000 due to healthcare

You said the government payroll outpaces the private sector. This does not prove that statement. This shows that the government is hiring more than the private sector and THAT IS A GOOD THING. Exactly! The government is hiring more people than the private sector is. Therefore, who will pay their salaries? How is it that the more people you have to pay with your tax dollar is a GOOD thing? Let's look at this from a different perspective. Cleo's family of 10 has a $4000. monthly income. Each member of the family contributes their income to pay thier expenses. They pay all their bills each month with $3000. of their income. She hires 10 people to do gardening, ironing, cleaning, etc. around her house. Each person gets paid $200. each month for their job. She is short each month by $1000. But, that's okay. She will borrow the money every month to keep those workers employed for her. She decides that others in the neighborhood need jobs as well. So, she hires 10 more at $200. a month for each of them. Now she is short $3000. each month in order to meet her responsibilities. Her family of 10 will have to work extra hours in order to come up with the funds to pay these employees, or they will have to give more of what they already have to pay for them. Times get tougher for the family members, cause they have to give more and/or work more in order to keep the rest of the neighborhood employed. In reality, the best thing for Cleos family would have been to get rid of 5 of the workers that they employed in the beginning, and never have hired any more of them. If she had done so, her budget would balance every month. The neighborhood people would have looked for ways to make a living if Cleo's family wasn't there to hire them. In this scenario, when the people were unemployed, I was paying them unemployment, plus food stamps, plus all the other aid they were entitled to. When I hired them, I stopped paying them all of this and instead paid them a wage, from which they PAID ME TAXES. Then they used these wages to buy things in the economy from those who sell goods and services thus stimulating the economy, increasing demand and allowing the places that provide these goods and services to hire more people based on this increased demand. A government job is a job and it does not take a job away from the private sector. If the private sector would hire and quit trying to get more work (for free ) from existing workers then the federal government wouldn't have to hire people. The private sector is afraid to hire because they are uncertain of Obama's policies which he claimed would be very transparent, BTW. That's just baloney. They also can't afford to hire, because Obama is expecting more from them now due to all the federal jobs that they must pay for.Apples and oranges. The federal government hiring workers does not impact on private sector hiring workers. That makes no sense. The government has not raised your taxes - in fact, they are lower (lower payroll taxes) so, as usual, your argument makes no sense. You see, when you hire someone for your business, you pay their salary directly, and they work for you personally. But when the government hires people, you ALSO pay for their salary, but don't always get something in return personally. How is the government hiring an employee going to make MY business prosper enough for me to be able to afford an employee or two? How is the government NOT hiring someone going to make your business prosper enough for you to hire an employee or two- since your taxes have been lowered? In fact, the government has added some tax incentives for businesses to hire. It wont. I must contribute to the salary (which is typically twice that of a regular employees salary) of all government employees through my taxes.Again, your payroll taxes are lower now under Obama. Therefore, now, I can't afford an employee of my own. Yes, every federal job given keeps the private sector jobs from being made. These fed. jobs must be paid, and they are far more expensive then any private job. The salary is usually 2-3X more, and the benefits are extra-tremendous, so is the pension. (Why should the taxpayer continue to pay the superintendant of schools $70,000. a year (1/2 his annual salary) AFTER he retires, till he dies? Noone in the private sector has such a benefit to his job, You're kidding, right? :lol:Have you not heard of golden parachutes? Carly Fiorina got fired from Hewlett Packard and got $20 million. yet the government feels their employees are deserving of this extra treat!) That's another topic. Anyway, the private sector is going broke because the federal government is bankrupting them.The federal government is bankrupting the private sector? It was the private sector banks on wall street that caused this economic collapse, not the federal government. It was the federal government that rescued the private sector. That's why they need to get more work out of their existing employees instead of hiring more of them. Who could afford it?! Oh, I know that you believe that the government isn't making anyone pay more taxes, but this is not entirely true. When the government spends, it must get its money to pay for these things from somewhere. They get it from big businesses who pay more in taxes, and they in turn raise the cost of their goods and services.Big businesses are not paying more in taxes, in fact many don't pay any taxes. The American people in turn pay higher prices for EVERYTHING, and there you have it. It's the way the average Joe pays his tax. Through the cost of living. There is a reason that a jar of Hellman's Mayo now cost $4.59 in CT. Because they must get the tax money that the gov. requires of them from somewhere. Money doesn't grow on trees. Trust a neocon to blame the federal government for the cost of a jar of mayo from Hellman's who controls the cost - and sets prices to maximize profit. Keep in mind that when a person is hired by the federal government, the pay taxes, buy things and stimulate the economy. This could happen just as well without the governments interference.No, it wouldn't. Private companies always try to maximize profits and that means getting more work from fewer employees. If they didn't hire people, the private sector would over time. Every economy goes through a slump and they always pull themselves out of it. As the economy improves, the deficit is reduced and fewer people depend on government programs (aid). They become productive members of our society. And that is a good thing. I wish the government would do more hiring, like the WPA program under FDR. Another great president the neocons hate. So much of your thinking is beyond puzzling, not to mention just not factual.

The Census Bureau says it let go about 243,000 of the temporary workers who helped in conducting the population count from mid-May to mid-June. Peak census employment reached about 586,000 in early May, indicating additional cuts to come that will keep distorting the payroll figures for months. Private payrolls For that reason, economists say private payrolls, which exclude government jobs, will be a better gauge of the state of the labor market for much of 2010. Employment at companies rose by 113,000 after a 41,000 gain in May, according to the median forecast of 29 economists surveyed. The report will probably also show the unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent last month, according to the survey median, from 9.7 percent. Joblessness, which reached a 26-year high of 10.1 percent in October, will take time to recede as the number of previously discouraged jobseekers returning to the labor force exceeds the number of available jobs. Factory payrolls increased in June for the sixth straight month, according to the survey. Service providers have also been adding to headcounts this year. Delta Air Lines Inc., the world's biggest carrier, will hire 700 airport ticket and gate agents to help handle increased summer traffic and operations disrupted by weather, Chris Kelly, a Delta spokeswoman, said June 18 in an interview. Those are in addition to the 300 pilot and 300 reservation agent jobs recently filled by the Atlanta-based airline. Factory rebound Manufacturers in the U.S. are reaping the benefits of the global recovery. Deere & Co., the world's largest farm equipment maker, last month reported second-quarter profit that topped analysts' estimates and raised earnings and sales forecasts for a second time this year as demand improved. Farm machinery sales in the U.S. and Canada will gain 5 percent to 10 percent for the year and South American farm equipment sales are projected to jump about 25 percent because of improvements in the Brazilian and Argentinean markets, Deere said. "Clearly the markets are improving, and there's a lot of good news out of Brazil," Susan Karlix, a Deere spokeswoman, said May 19 on a conference call with analysts. On Thursday, the Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing index will show factories expanded in June for an 11th consecutive month, according to economists surveyed. Manufacturing accounts for about 11 percent of the economy. Manufacturers' shares The manufacturing rebound has helped underpin shares. The Standard & Poor's Supercomposite Industrial Machinery Index of 52 companies, including Caterpillar Inc. and Deere, has increased 7.8 percent so far this year compared with a 3.4 percent decline in the broader S&P 500. Household spending climbed 0.1 percent in May after being little changed the prior month, economists projected a report from the Commerce Department tomorrow will show. Incomes likely rose 0.5 percent, the biggest gain in a year, as an increase in hours and average earnings more than made up for a smaller increase in employment, the report will also show. The Federal Reserve last week said slowing inflation and the fallout from Europe's debt crisis where among reasons it will maintain interest rates low for "an extended period." The central bank said the labor market is "improving gradually," changing April's assessment that it was "beginning to improve." Consumer spending still "remains constrained" by joblessness and "tight credit," it said. Tax credit Housing is feeling the effects of the end of a homebuyer tax credit, figures may show. Construction spending, due from the Commerce Department on Thursday, fell 0.7 percent in May after a gain of 2.7 percent, economists projected. The following day, the National Association of Realtors will publish its index of signed purchase agreements, or pending home resales, which will show a 14 percent decline in May after three months of gains, according to the survey. Another report from S&P/Case-Shiller on Tuesday may show an index of average home prices in 20 cities rose 3.5 percent in April from a year earlier. bloomberg news So, let's see: 1) Employment at companies rose 2) Factory payrolls increased for the sixth straight month 3) Delta Airlines is going to hire 700 4) Manufacturers are reaping the benefits of global recovery 5) Markets are improving 6) Manufacturing is rebounding 7) Income rose 0.5% (the biggest gain in a year) 8) Labor market is improving gradually BUT somehow the republicans don't like any of this. The economy is recovering but they want it to fail. And they've done everything in their power to help it fail. They want Obama to fail, so they can push their agenda. The republicans don't like any of the above listed economic improvements and want to go back to the failed policies of bush. Why is anyone with half a brain listening to them?

from pattygreen: "The tea party movement is not lying about anything. Nor do they use fear tactics. This is your opinion only." No fear tactics? Oh, really? Leaked documents reveal GOP plan to use scare tactics to raise money Thu Mar 4, 6:20 pm ET National GOP leaders are doing damage control today after a Politico scoop lifted the curtain on the party's plan to tap voters' "fear" in the coming campaign season. The PR problem started when an absent-minded attendee at the Republican National Committee (RNC) confab on February 18 in Boca Grande, Florida, left a 72-page document from its 2010 strategizing session in a hotel room. Today, Politico reporter Ben Smith's expose is making headlines. The memo tracks the fundraising presentation that RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart delivered to the RNC's $2,500-a-head annual retreat. The best path to victory in 2010, the document advises, is for Republican candidates to depict themselves as the best hope for resisting the "trending toward socialism" taking shape in a Democrat-dominated Washington. And the document doesn't shy from making its points graphically. MSNBC showed the images this morning on "Morning Joe": The presentation portrays the Obama administration as "The Evil Empire," including the now-infamous image of President Obama made over in the makeup Heath Ledger used in his performance as the Joker in the 2008 Batman movie "The Dark Knight." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears as Cruella De Vil from "101 Dalmatians," and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the witless cartoon dog Scooby-Doo. The memo candidly confirms that the aim of such caricature is to amp up "fear" among the GOP's conservative base. The memo also makes fun of major RNC donors, categorizing some as "ego-driven" and easily pacified with "tchochkes" (a Slavic word for toys). The embrace of harsh rhetoric and the swipes at the large donor set seem to signal the GOP establishment's growing comfort with employing tactics associated with the activist Tea Party movement—and with plying Tea Party sympathizers for cash. Of course, it isn't unusual for parties out of power to court controversy and play with fire to rile up donors and grass-roots activists. The RNC has caught heat for fundraising tactics in the past, most recently when it was caught sending out fake census forms to raise money.

from pattygreen: "The tea party movement is not lying about anything. Nor do they use fear tactics. This is your opinion only." It is not MY opinion only, and here are some of the lies of the tea party: We keep hearing about how taxes are evil and we are overtaxed, yet taxes are at their lowest levels in 60 years, according to William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center and director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution, as reported by CBS News. All those teabaggers paid less in taxes this year, yet they are claiming they are “overtaxed.” The fact is Democrats cut taxes by more than $800 billion, largely through the income tax credit in the stimulus and tax credits to help small-business employees get health insurance in the health bill. What’s more, Congress will push through $285 billion more in tax cuts before this session is out by extending expiring George W. Bush-era tax cuts for richest 1 percent. Lately, faux “news” has been pushing the lie that 47 percent of American homes pay no taxes. That’s simply not true. In fact, the non-partisan and non-profit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) confirmed that the poor and middle class pay more than the rich in taxes. It is true that 47 percent do not pay federal income tax directly. To me the real story is that faux is outraged that the guy who works two minimum wages jobs does not pay federal income tax, but that it has no problem that General Electric generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up not only paying no federal tax, but it got a $1.1 billion refund check from Uncle Sam. Where is the outrage? (There is no outrage because the phony tea partiers are pro-corporations). This is because of offshoring and setting up wholly owned subsidiaries in places like the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that legally shelter the cash flow. They set up costs in high-tax countries and profits in low-tax countries. The argument they will make is that they do that because the U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates, but we also have a high standard of living. We will never compete with the tax rate of China or some other Third World country. Most corporations make their profits from U.S. citizens, and the fact is they would not make a penny if not for the benefits they enjoy that are paid for by U.S. tax dollars. Taxes pay for the interstate highway system to move their good, the ports, the rail, the sanitation and many other things, yet, they pay little tax here. Again, where is the outrage?

Our political system has failed us all -- that's what we should be most angry about. I think what we have the right to be angry about is the money that it now takes to run even the smallest congressional campaign. It now cost millions and millions and when independently wealthy individuasl, like republican Carly Fiorina, who got $20 million from Hewlett Packard when they fired her, spent tons on her recent election. This all but eliminates the average person's chances of running for office, unless they get big corporate donations and that spells nothing but trouble. But, all of this does not leave the voter off the hook. There is plenty of information out there. The internet, 24/7 cable news, newspapers, books, etc.. for people to get informed AND LEARN THE TRUTH. But they are too lazy and want some 10 second soundbite (usually a lie or fear inducing) that they can repeat ad infinitum, ad nauseum (how do you spell death panels, which was both).