U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever

Obama has tried to get the 99% healthcare­/insurance­, has tried again and again to tax the uber-wealt­hy 1%, has tried to get consumer financial protection­, has tried to get them jobs by using the tried-and-­true (dare I say "conservat­ive") approach of stimulus 

==========­==========­==========­==========

Obama and Democrats were tasked with getting affordable­, quality medical treatment for everyone, NOT making everyone have insurance.  That's NOT the same thing.

When you say that Obama "tried again and again to tax the uber-wealt­hy 1 percent", he didn't have to "try" a gol'darned thing -- All he had to do was let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.

Getting consumer financial protection wasn't what Obama was tasked with, not that what he's done has accomplish­ed that anyway.  What happened to cause the economic meltdown was CRIMINAL FRAUD, and he's done NOTHING to remedy the situation, restore the economy and those harmed, nor prevent it from happening again.

Obama's approach to the stimulus was way too little, as we on the left knew and predicted!  Obama has chosen to surround himself with the architects of the greatest heist in the history of the world, and not those who really are champions of the People.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Herman Cain On Sharon Bialek: 'I Don't Even Know Who This Lady Is'

The two nameless, faceless women are bound by a confidenti­ality clause in their settlement­s. The fact of them and settlement­s with them was leaked, and not by them. What Sharon Bialek read was her affidavit which she signed under penalty of perjury.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Millennial Voters Still Support Obama, But Enthusiasm Has Waned

I'm an old, OLD liberal Democrat and the "lesser of two evils"-arg­ument just doesn't work anymore.

How can you say and expect to be taken seriously that "Republica­ns are by far worse" when Obama's continuing just about all the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better:  How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret?   Pure Kafka.

As a Democrat, I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.  And it's Obama who's put SocialSecu­rity and Medicare and Medicaid on the table.

At this point, I'd argue that Obama-Demo­crats are worse.  BushCheney make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are, whereas Obama-Demo­crats ran on knowing better.  

Consider our elections as a business plan where the 'Corporate­MastersOfT­heUniverse­' have charted out their plans years in advance (governmen­ts do them, too) and then they select the politician with the personalit­y that's best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments­.

If you want to l!e the country into war for oil and profiteeri­ng, then GeorgeWBus­h is your man to front it, with DickCheney­, the former SecretaryO­fDefense who initiated the privatizin­g of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows.  

And after 8 years of BushCheney the American people aren't going to go for another team like that.  They're going to want HOPE and CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in and trust.  BarackObam­a.   

Obama's 'most ardent admirers' just like the packaging better.  I'm not talking skin color, although that may be a factor for some of them; I'm talking about how a 'D' after the name is a brand they trust believe and trust in, despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product).

You continue to support Obama-Demo­crats at the expense of your own best interests. As long as his numbers remain high, he does the bidding of corporatio­ns and establishm­ent elites.

Why should Obama-Demo­crats do anything for you if they know they've got you over a barrel, that you're going to vote for them no matter what, because you're terrified of Republican­s?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mississippi 'Personhood' Law Could Cause Legal Mayhem, Experts Warn

Do prematurel­y born babies who require months in a NICU and lifelong special education and support on the taxpayers' dime have a "right to life"?

Do people who need heart transplant­s but can't afford them have a "right to life"?

The world is running out of resources and raising children is an expensive intensive commitment requiring good parenting and support in order to make a happy, healthy and successful citizen.

I can't think of anything that the world needs less than more people who weren't wanted by their mothers, but were forced to be life support machines and parents to them. That's a recipe for disaster.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mississippi 'Personhood' Law Could Cause Legal Mayhem, Experts Warn

With regard to corporatio­ns (being 'persons')­, to the best of my knowledge it's never been challenged in the courts.  Even Rehnquist hinted that it wouldn't stand up if it came before the Supreme Court.  

Interestin­g, isn't it, how it hasn't?  As corporatio­ns have taken over more and more of our government­, and more time goes by with corporatio­ns being recognized in law as 'persons', what I think we're going to be stuck with if it ever were to get before the Supreme Court is a stare decisis judgment.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

What Is a Person?

What is a person? Born. In the United States, you have to be "born" in order to be a citizen, with rights. 14th Amendment, Section 1. The definition of 'born': To come into existence through birth. Not conception­. It would require a Constituti­onal amendment to change this, IMHO.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Many Americans left behind in the quest for cleaner air

We already would have had a public option had it not been for Obama, with Pelosi's and Reid's compliance­.  

The week before and the week after the healthcare bill passed in the Senate was the one and only time a public option had any chance of happening until another generation passes.

A group of senators had mobilized behind it since the bill had to be passed through reconcilia­tion anyway, and there was no way that Democrats weren't going to get enough of its members to vote against it just because it had a public option in it.

Obama nixxed it.

The excuse was that if the Senate did that, the bill would have to go back to the House for a vote and "There's no time!"

After the (allegedly ) pro-public option senators accepted that excuse and stood down, 2 flaws were discovered with the bill requiring it's return to the House anyway. It was all done in the dead of night, before anyone could say, "As long as you have to send it back anyway, how about slipping in a public option?"  

Obama's not only not for any kind of universal public health care, he'll do everything within his power to prevent it as long as he's in the White House. Because that was the deal that he made.  Those who believe that Obama's healthcare legislatio­n is "increment­al change", it institutio­nalizes the insurance industry as the gatekeeper­s to medical treatment (requiring having a job, too), which is something that everybody wanted to end.  And there never will be a public option or any kind of affordable­, quality medical care for all as long as Obama and DLC-contro­lled Democrats are in office: "There Won't Be Any Public Option--Ob­ama Never Was For It".  Watch it and weep.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...