Cleo's Mom

I know. Their criticisms are unbelievable. They just want to make a problem where there isn't any. They wanted Pres. Obama to react slowly to the oil spill so as to say it was like his Katrina. But the facts don't support it. Not that that stops them, but to intelligent, thinking people it just shows how desperate and pathetic they are. They will make some election gains in 2010, as the opposition party always does. But if the economy continues to improve, they will get bit in 2012.

Exactly. And as I've said before, when the middle class votes for republicans they do so against their own best interests because republicans have done nothing, nothing, to help the middle class. If you vote for them for social reasons - here's what I advise: don't have an abortion, don't let anyone in your family be gay and make sure they're all armed, and then vote democratic. The following is in sharp contrast to the reganomics of the pie chart above. This is Obama-nomics and it's working, though you'd never know to listen to the Obama-bashing republicans. When the republicans ask: Where are the jobs? - point to the last 4 months, but keep in mind they might need a remedial course in bar graphs.

We're working more, producing more and earning less while the rich get richer. That sums up the republican economic policy: from dailykos; As Les Leopold notes in The Looting of America, the richest 1% of earners collected 8% of national income in 1973. "By 2006, the top 1% got nearly 23% of the pie, the highest proportion since 1929, " he writes. Moreover, the richest 1% now earns more than the bottom 50% of Americans. During almost exactly the same period, the pay gap between the top 100 CEOs and workers rose from 45 to 1 in 1970 to Himalayan proportions in 2006, reaching 1,723 to 1, Leopold says, citing data from Forbes. But one of the most significant and least-discussed elements in the stunning polarization of America is the extent to which rising productivity has become unhitched from the way that its rewards are distributed. Leopold lays out the astonishing data on this disparity: By 2007, real wages in today's dollars had slid from their peak of $746 per week in 1973 to $612 per week--an 18% drop. Had wages increased along with productivity, the current average wage for nonsupervisory workers would be $1,171 per week--$60,892 instead of today's average of $31,824. Our real average compensation is now about $25 per hour, including all benefits, representing a small increase from the early 1970s [in part created simply because of the sharp rise in health costs.] If it had risen along with productivity, it would be more like $41 an hour. The productivity bonus--about $16 an hour--is still AWOL. Over roughly the same period, the ratio of household debt to income went from 55% to 127%, as Americans tried to make up for the loss of real wages with increased use of their credit cards. American families have found themselves with vastly reduced time off the job, losing vacation days, sick time, and other leave. Until the recession hit, we were working the longest hours in the world. While the numbers for income are highly skewed, those for wealth are even worse, as shown by these graphs.

Breaking News: Republicans want to arm terrorists! Gail Collins / Congress, up in arms: Members are more afraid of the N-R-A than the en-e-my Friday, May 07, 2010 There seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms. "I think you're going too far here," said Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday. He was speaking in opposition to a bill that would keep people on the FBI terrorist watch list from buying guns and explosives. Say what? Yes, if you are on the terrorist watch list, the authorities can keep you from getting on a plane, but not from purchasing an AK-47. This makes sense to Congress because, as Mr. Graham accurately pointed out, "when the founders sat down and wrote the Constitution, they didn't consider flying." The subject of guns turns Congress into a twilight zone. People who are perfectly happy to let the government wiretap phones go nuts when the government wants to keep track of weapons permits. A guy who stands up in the House and defends the torture of terror suspects will nearly faint with horror at the prospect of depriving someone on the watch list of the right to purchase a pistol. "We make it so easy for dangerous people to get guns. If it's the Second Amendment, it doesn't matter if they're Osama bin Laden," said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Mr. Graham wanted to make it clear that just because he doesn't want to stop gun purchases by possible terrorists, that doesn't mean he's not tough on terror. "I am all into national security. ... I want to stop reading these guys their Miranda rights," he said. The Obama administration has been criticized by many Republicans for having followed the rules about how long you can question a terror suspect before you read him his rights. These objections have been particularly loud since the arrest of Faisal Shahzad in the attempted Times Square bombing. No one seems moved by the fact that Mr. Shahzad, after being told that he had the right to remain silent, continued talking incessantly. "Nobody in their right mind would expect a Marine to read someone caught on the battlefield their rights," Mr. Graham said. Terror threats make politicians behave somewhat irrationally. But the subject of guns makes them act like a paranoid mother ferret protecting her litter. The National Rifle Association, the fiercest lobby in Washington, grades every member of Congress on how well they toe the NRA line. Lawmakers with heavily rural districts would rather vote to legalize carrying concealed weapons in kindergarten than risk getting less than 100 percent. The Homeland Security Committee hearing on "Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms," concerned a modest bill sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. It would allow the government to stop gun sales to people on the FBI terror watch list the same way it does people who have felony convictions. Because Congress has repeatedly rejected this idea, 1,119 people on the watch list have been able to purchase weapons over the last six years. One of them bought 50 pounds of military-grade explosives. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York and his police commissioner, Raymond Kelly, dutifully trekked down to Washington to plead for the bill on behalf of the nation's cities. The only thing they got for their trouble was praise for getting the city through the Times Square incident in one piece. And almost everyone had a good word for the T-shirt vendor who first noticed the suspicious car and raised an alert. Really, if someone had introduced a bill calling for additional T-shirt vendors, it would have sailed through in a heartbeat. Gun legislation, not so popular. Mr. Lautenberg's bill has been moldering in committee, and that is not going to change. "Let me emphasize that none of us wants a terrorist to be able to purchase a gun," said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who nevertheless went on to argue against allowing the government to use the terrorist watch list to keep anyone from being able to purchase, um, a gun. "Some of the people pushing this idea are also pushing the idea of banning handguns," said Mr. Graham, darkly. "I don't think banning handguns makes me safer." The terrorist watch list is huge, and some of the names on it are undoubtedly there in error. The bill would allow anyone denied the right to purchase a firearm an appeal process, but that would deprive the would-be purchaser some precious gun-owning time. Before we subject innocent Americans "to having to go into court and pay the cost of going to court to get their gun rights back, I want to slow down and think about this," said Mr. Graham. Slow is going to be very slow, and the thinking could go on for decades. Gail Collins is a syndicated columnist for The New York Times So while the conservatives approve of warrantless wiretapping, denying miranda rights, and stripping american citizens of their citizenship before being convicted of terrorism, they go into shock at the thought of denying those on the terrorisit watch list a chance to purchase guns, etc.. Oh, the horror

Smithtown Messenger Runs Photos Portraying President Obama & Wife as "Fred Sanford & Aunt Esther" Posted by Janet Shan | 6:45 PM | View Comments Long Island newspaper portrays President Obama and wife Michelle as Aunt Esther and Fred Sanford from "Sanford & Son" TV show. Thought the negative and stereotypical portrayals of President Barack Obama had ended? Wrong. Photos of the president and his wife Michelle have surfaced in the Smithtown Messenger, a Republican newspaper, last week and sparked some controversy on Long Island. The cartoon, created by Phillip Sciarello, features "before and after" photos of six presidents and their wives, starting with Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter and ends with President Obama and his wife, according to WPIX.com. One picture of President Obama and his wife Michelle show the couple hugging, while the second depicted the 1970's show "Sanford and Son" where Sanford's sister-in-law Aunt Esther, played by LaWanda Page, had her fists up facing comedian Redd Foxx. Sorry, but the portrayal of the Obamas is despicable and plays on negative stereotypes. According to WPIX, many Democrats are incensed by the photos and have called for the newspaper to be stripped of county legal ads. Many critics have dubbed the illustration "racist" and "despicable," which has prompted many Democrats to call for the Smithtown Messenger to be stripped of county legal ads. Sciarello reportedly called the criticism unfounded and that the photos were meant as "political satire." Really? Were Aunt Esther and Fred Sanford the only two black characters available to portray the First Couple? I didn't see the other presidents and their spouses portrayed in any other manner but as themselves. I guess that after photo of the Obamas was planted by someone on the left. LMAO. All the after photos of the presidents and their wives - republican and democrat - just showed them getting older - EXCEPT for the Obamas. Now let me think what makes them different -hmmm- OH! I remember. They're the first black president and first lady.

The same number that the right planted BS for your videos. :bored:

Another interesting video for the tea party supporters who actually think it's about spending and the deficit. :thumbup:

Fills are done on Mondays by appointment. This is what I have been told. So, if at your appt. he thinks you need a fill, one will be scheduled. It won't be done that day.

You might be interested in this article: Low-Fat Diet Tops Low-Carb in Long Run

waynoo - no reason not to post here if you like. It only gets heated when some fling personal insults. I post to correct a lot of the misinformation and outright lies that are posted here. I won't let them go unchallenged. We all have our opinions, too, and you are welcome to share yours. And don't worry about your spelling, you are not the world's worst - that would be my adult daughter - it is a family joke. One thing about your post that I am curious about. Why did that market hire 300 illegals when they could have hired 300 legals?

Your husband was asked to show his ID after breaking the law. The way the Arizona law works is that anyone who is "suspicious" can be asked to "show me your papers". That's a little different. And I wonder if people would be supportive of this bill if ONLY white people were being asked to "show me your papers". And remember - there was a group of people who had to wear stars of David on their outer clothing and who were singled out to "show their papers" - it was called Nazi Germany and we know what happened to them. The "star of David" for latinos is their skin color. It never ceases to amaze me how the right wing tea baggers can protest false loss of their rights and freedom and protest "big government's" intrusion into their private life and call Pres. Obama a nazi, etc.. and yet support this bill. Oh, I know, because they're white and this bill will go after people of color. What hypocrites.

Another interesting view of this bill: Beware ... they might vote! Greg Palast at GregPalast.com claims to have uncovered the real reason Arizona passed its tough immigration law: "Don't be fooled. The way the media plays the story, it was a wave of racist, anti-immigrant hysteria that moved Arizona Republicans to pass a sick little law ... requiring every person in the state to carry papers proving they are U.S. citizens. I don't buy it. Anti-Hispanic hysteria has always been as much a part of Arizona as the saguaro cactus and excessive air-conditioning. "What's new here is not the politicians' fear of a xenophobic 'tea bag' uprising. What moved GOP Gov. Jan Brewer to sign the Soviet-style show-me-your-papers law is the exploding number of legal Hispanics, U.S. citizens all, who are daring to vote -- and daring to vote Democratic by more than two-to-one. Unless this demographic locomotive is halted, Arizona Republicans know their party will soon be electoral toast. Or, if you like, tortillas."

First of all, you are confusing an established political party (democrats) with protesters. Those who protested against conservative agendas and the war do not represent the democratic party, although they may support their agenda. Find a post of mine where I denied that so-called liberal protesters were never violent. I have not posted that. You only claim that I have. YOU however have denied the violence of the tea party. When I posted about it you came right out and said it didn't happen - including the incendiary device at the congressman's brother's home. That's right up there with your denial of insurance companies dropping people when they get sick - saying they didn't do that. So, you see, it is YOU who gets her facts wrong, not me. Here is what you posted: from pattygreen (with reference to my posts about violence from the teaparty and right wing):"This 'violence' you speak of is in your head as well as every other liberal out there who would just 'love' to see it be true. Since it isn't true, they feel the need to make it up." Not true? Just in our heads? So, you see, your have zero credibility. :smile: And no, my motto isn't "do as I say, not as I do". I have two mottos which I have posted several times but apparently you need a reminder: 1) Without hypocrisy the republicans would have nothing (I had a whole thread dedicated to this that you got shut down) 2) Regulate, baby, regulate. :thumbup: And also worth noting: The fact that you felt the need to vehemently attack me personally while I didn't attack you in my posts. This shows me that you have nothing - so you have to go after the messenger. Very pathetic and telling. :glare:

How dare you say shame on ME for being hateful. It's you with your cold hearted, elitist, "let them eat cake, they made their bed let them lie in it" attitude toward the least among us that makes you the hateful person. :thumbup: I have repeatedly stated what my opinion is about the tea party. That ground zero for them is their hatred of Pres. Obama, their hatred of a black man in the white house, their desire to see him fail so that they can succeed with their mean-spirited, right wing, ultra conservative, pro-corporate, pro-rich agenda. All the other stuff they claim to be against is just a smoke screen. And I have posted published opinions of columnists and others who agree with me. So, you can call this hatred if it makes you feel better, but you and others are the ones being duped by the nut-teas, not me. They will never fool me. And as for posting about the violence of the tea party - it's the truth - so don't kill the messenger. It happened.

Give 'em hell, BJean. I'm with you. We both know we're the true patriots. We are the government and we want to support it so that it works for us. We don't want our president to fail, like the tea party, republicans and right wing nuts do. We want him to succeed so that the country does and he's doing a great job. Just going along, getting his agenda passed and moving on to the next problem and that's what's really making them pi$$ed-off - that he just gets things done and keeps on going. :thumbup:

Abusive, derogatory and even racist behavior directed at House Democrats by Tea Party protesters on Saturday left several lawmakers in shock. Preceding the president's speech to a gathering of House Democrats, thousands of protesters descended around the Capitol to protest the passage of health care reform. The gathering quickly turned into abusive heckling, as members of Congress passing through Longworth House office building were subjected to epithets and even mild physical abuse. A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams. Frank, approached in the halls after the president's speech, shrugged off the incident. But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s. "It was absolutely shocking to me," Clyburn said, in response to a question from the Huffington Post. "Last Monday, this past Monday, I stayed home to meet on the campus of Claflin University where fifty years ago as of last Monday... I led the first demonstrations in South Carolina, the sit ins... And quite frankly I heard some things today I have not heard since that day. I heard people saying things that I have not heard since March 15, 1960 when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus." from: huffington post I will believe Rep. Clyburn over Mona Charen's account, that's for sure.

Just a reminder for those who don't think the tea party is violent:

The violence of the tea party.

The violence done in the name of the tea partiers has been documented and posted on here. From the man (who sits at home collecting his government disability checks) who advocated throwing bricks through the windows of democrats who voted yes on healthcare, to those who spit on black, democratic lawmakers and called them the N word, to harrassing a man with Parkinson's disease, to planting an explosive device at a democratic congressman's brother's home. The media attention to the tea party has been way out of proportion to their actual importance. They are just loud, insulting and mean spirited. So, let them continue to rally with their misspelled signs about taxes (when theirs have been lowered :thumbup:) because they don't know what they're yapping about. Yawn. But where are they on wall street (financial) regulation? Absent!! They claim to be against government intrusion into our lives and taking away our freedom and liberty - but what could be a bigger intrusion than the recent Arizona law? Talk about big brother and nazi-ism. In nazi Germany is where you heard "show me your papers". But do you see the teabaggers protest this blatant government intrusion into our lives? NO, of course not. They are just puppets of the conservative/republican movement and parrot those talking points.

And to Sarah Palin I ask: How's that drill-y, spill-y thing working for ya?

Great photos of the people at the wall street protest yesterday. It's a great, diverse crowd who actually know what they are for and against. If the estimates of 30,000+ is accurate that is about 3 times the number at the big tea party rally on tax day - April 15th in DC. Daily Kos: Photos and Stories from the Labor March on Wall St..- This protest deserved the same coverage that the stupid tea partiers get, but it didn't because they didn't have the hateful (and misspelled) anti-Obama signs.

There are too many right wing lies, distortions, misconceptions, fear-mongering etc.. that go unchallenged in the media. I try not to let that happen here.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Did some fact checking, ariscus99, and couldn't let your post go unchallenged: Browse > Home / Ask FactCheck / FDR’s “Voluntary” Social Security FDR’s “Voluntary” Social Security March 24, 2009 Updated: March 27, 2009 Q: Did FDR promise that Social Security would be voluntary? Did Democrats end tax deductions for Social Security withholding? A: Social Security has never been voluntary and taxes paid to support it have never been deductible from federal income taxes. A widely e-mailed "history lesson" gets nearly all its facts wrong. FULL QUESTION Dozens of readers have asked about this one, which has been going around for months in various forms: ⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏ Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones too) Weren’t taught or just didn’t know this. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what’s what. And it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat of Republican. Facts are facts!!! Our Social Security Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary. 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program, 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to ‘put away, you may be interested in the following: ————————————————– ———– Q: Which political party took Social Security from the Independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it in to the General Fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate. ——————————————————————– Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party. ———————————————————————– Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S. ——————————————————————- Q: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? AND MY FAVORITE: A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, they began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them even though they never paid a dime into it! ———————————————————————- Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so. But it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!! ‘A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.’ -Thomas Jefferson FULL ANSWER This elaborate collection of falsehoods is so detailed that we believe it must be an intentional and malicious effort at disinformation. It grafts some new whoppers on top of a list that we debunked in April 2004, in a special report we called "Lies in the E-mail, Part 2." The earlier version, we said, was "full of laughably inaccurate claims," and this one is worse. FDR Never Promised That We’ll address the newer claims first, specifically the five "promises" supposedly made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the inception of the Social Security system in 1935. We rely here on no less an authority than the official historian of the Social Security System, Larry DeWitt, who has written up a detailed response to these claims under the heading "Myths and Misinformation About Social Security," which can be found on the Social Security History Web page, along with answers to other frequently asked questions. Not Voluntary. Contrary to the e-mail’s very first claim, FDR never promised that "the program would be completely voluntary." It is supported by taxes and participation has never been voluntary. As historian DeWitt states: "From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes. " Not 1 Percent. Another false claim is that FDR promised participants would pay only "1% of the first $1,400" of income. The law FDR signed taxed income up to $3,000, for one thing. And while the rate was 1 percent for the first few years, the law FDR signed raised it incrementally in 1940, 1943, 1946 and 1949, when it reached 3 percent. Not Deductible. Also false is the statement that Social Security contributions "would be deductible from their income for tax purposes." The opposite is true. Section 803 of the law Roosevelt signed specifically says Social Security payroll taxes "shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year." So the claim made later in the e-mail – that Democrats "eliminated the income tax deduction" for payroll taxes – cannot possibly be true. There was never a deduction to eliminate. Update, March 27: An alert reader points out that self-employed persons must pay "self-employment tax," which is a Social Security and Medicare tax similar to the taxes withheld from the pay of most wage earners. Half of the SE tax is indeed deductible when figuring adjusted gross income for federal income tax purposes. However, the SE tax deduction has not been eliminated, not by "the Democratic party" or by anybody else. Trust Fund Falsehoods. The message claims that FDR promised Social Security funds would be used "for no other government program," but that Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress later took Social Security into the General Fund "so that Congress could spend it." This is twisted history. The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits. As DeWitt states: "[T]here has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government." All LBJ did in 1968 was to make Social Security taxes and spending part of a "unified budget." As DeWitt notes, this was an accounting issue and "has no affect on the actual operations of the [social Security] Trust Fund itself." Taxation of benefits. The e-mail also gets it wrong when it claims that Roosevelt promised that "annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income." It’s true that Social Security benefits weren’t taxed at first, but DeWitt writes that this was the result of a series of administrative rulings by the Treasury Department, not the result of Roosevelt’s law or anything he did or promised. And contrary to a false claim made later in the e-mail, it was not Democrats alone who "started taxing Social Security annuities." Congress authorized taxation of Social Security benefits in 1983, when Republicans controlled the Senate, and the measure was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The measure was part of a bipartisan compromise to shore up the finances of the system, which were then on the verge of collapse. Nixon’s Gift to Immigrants Another huge whopper in this e-mail is the claim that President Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party "decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants … even though they never paid a dime into it." In truth, no illegal immigrant is allowed to get a penny of Social Security retirement benefits, as this message implies. (We address more false claims on that theme in another Ask FactCheck.) And any immigrant who has become a citizen or legal resident can qualify only to the extent that they have worked and paid into the system for years, on the same basis as everybody else. The earlier version of this e-mail made this claim only about the SSI program – the Supplemental Security Income program for the blind, disabled or elderly and destitute. But the truth is, that program was signed into law by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1972. Under Nixon’s SSI law, legal immigrants were eligible for benefits from the start. It is a federal welfare program funded out of general tax revenues and is separate from the Social Security old-age pensions and disability insurance programs funded out of dedicated payroll taxes. While Social Security benefits are paid to those who have paid payroll taxes for a certain minimum period of time, SSI benefits were available to all – citizens and legal residents alike – regardless of whether they had "paid a dime into it" or not.