Friday, March 04, 2005
Women supporting women.
Martha Stewart came into the American Conscious as a quality of nurturing tweeked with a sense of 'luxury' lacking the all too famous concept of thrift.
She allowed women the freedom to be nuturing while pampering themselves with praise by conquering the attitubute of the Hostess with the Mostest. Handy, adept and always with 'the creative answer' to every holiday fare. How American. How Female. The superwoman of all superwomen. Mini-Marthas at every turn shopping for Martha this and Martha that to be sure their homes were fashionably correct.
It is a long held value that a woman should be the master of her universe and to the tune of an empire of domestic fluff, Martha Stewart landed on Wall Street.
My opinion is benign, every woman needs to find her nitch. If Martha's values of home and hearth enriches the soul and enables a pride at a time in a woman's life that is dictated by children and family then there is a place for Martha regardless the issues that beset that icon.
I am not a domestic diva and seek interests where bookworns live and polar bears call home. But, that is not the world of Martha and for that reason I reserve any opinion regarding the advances of women's rights via Martha.
I will say this, there was no abandonment of her or her empire by the majority of American Women. That's a good thing. Women feel cloistered to some extent if not by their biology but by 'their place' in the greater scheme of things. To find value of Martha Stewart through her tribuations is like being a good neighbor. Martha is everyone's best friend and good neighbor. There is not a darn thing wrong with that. Women forgive far easier than men and to that end families grow and stay together. It is safe to say Martha Stewart has a family that spans a nation and more likely the globe. If being loyal to Martha is being loyal to yourself than everyone has won a very valuable fight for women.
I have only one other thought about this mess. I think she was victimized. By herself. By those that sought to see her differently. By those that would find priviledge in the power of money. Her case is still on appeal. She bravely stated if I have to serve a sentence I would like to get it over with and get on with my life. The danger in this is that her appeal may very well find her exonerated of all wrong doing. Exonerated of 'a lie.' What then will Martha Stewart be to the women of her family?
A martyr?
A dangerous place for a society to put women. Placing women in a position of self-rigtheousness? Standing by their friend 'knowing' this was nothing more than prejudice of women?
Wow.
Perhaps that is where women have always been because if there is one aspect of women, true globally, is that they are resourceful creatures enjoying life while 'finding a way' in worlds created to serve men.
Perhaps that IS Martha Stewart. Perhaps that is the characteristic that draws her family closer. It is the character strength of resourcefulness that is the common experience of any woman.
She allowed women the freedom to be nuturing while pampering themselves with praise by conquering the attitubute of the Hostess with the Mostest. Handy, adept and always with 'the creative answer' to every holiday fare. How American. How Female. The superwoman of all superwomen. Mini-Marthas at every turn shopping for Martha this and Martha that to be sure their homes were fashionably correct.
It is a long held value that a woman should be the master of her universe and to the tune of an empire of domestic fluff, Martha Stewart landed on Wall Street.
My opinion is benign, every woman needs to find her nitch. If Martha's values of home and hearth enriches the soul and enables a pride at a time in a woman's life that is dictated by children and family then there is a place for Martha regardless the issues that beset that icon.
I am not a domestic diva and seek interests where bookworns live and polar bears call home. But, that is not the world of Martha and for that reason I reserve any opinion regarding the advances of women's rights via Martha.
I will say this, there was no abandonment of her or her empire by the majority of American Women. That's a good thing. Women feel cloistered to some extent if not by their biology but by 'their place' in the greater scheme of things. To find value of Martha Stewart through her tribuations is like being a good neighbor. Martha is everyone's best friend and good neighbor. There is not a darn thing wrong with that. Women forgive far easier than men and to that end families grow and stay together. It is safe to say Martha Stewart has a family that spans a nation and more likely the globe. If being loyal to Martha is being loyal to yourself than everyone has won a very valuable fight for women.
I have only one other thought about this mess. I think she was victimized. By herself. By those that sought to see her differently. By those that would find priviledge in the power of money. Her case is still on appeal. She bravely stated if I have to serve a sentence I would like to get it over with and get on with my life. The danger in this is that her appeal may very well find her exonerated of all wrong doing. Exonerated of 'a lie.' What then will Martha Stewart be to the women of her family?
A martyr?
A dangerous place for a society to put women. Placing women in a position of self-rigtheousness? Standing by their friend 'knowing' this was nothing more than prejudice of women?
Wow.
Perhaps that is where women have always been because if there is one aspect of women, true globally, is that they are resourceful creatures enjoying life while 'finding a way' in worlds created to serve men.
Perhaps that IS Martha Stewart. Perhaps that is the characteristic that draws her family closer. It is the character strength of resourcefulness that is the common experience of any woman.
Kobe Keeps His 'Virginity'
Kobe Bryant under Glass
Kobe_Bryant_Basketball.jpg)
BROWN: Late word out of Denver tonight, basketball star Kobe Bryant has settled a civil lawsuit brought by the woman who claims that he raped her in 2003. Mr. Bryant has maintained that their sexual encounter was consensual, though he has apologized and he said he now understand that she didn't see it as consensual. Criminal charges were dropped when the woman refused to testify. So, the settlement brings an end to the matter but something happened to Kobe Bryant along the way. His image has lost its luster.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN (voice-over): For most of his career on the basketball court, he has been sublime, made rich on the court, richer off it. If Allen Iverson was hip-hop, Kobe Bryant was Madison Avenue by design.
JOHN WERTHEIM, "SPORTS ILLUSTRATED": With the exception of Michael Jordan, you're unlikely to find a basketball player who is more meticulous about his image, everything from how he appears in public. He's very selective about his endorsements. BROWN: But one night in Colorado changed all of that. At the very least, it led to a public and messy admission of adultery and far worse to charges of rape. Kobe Bryant went from the perfect transition, from the era of Michael, to an accused sex offender and even in these days sex offenders don't sell much soda or candy bars.
WERTHEIM: This has done irrevocable economic harm to Kobe Bryant and it also has does harm in that sort of ineffable, incalculable sort of buzz image factor.
BROWN: Whatever exactly happened in Colorado that night he is, to be sure, no longer the NBA's golden goose, not untouchable exactly but no longer money in the bank either. His jersey used to be a top seller, no more.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've got Lakers merchandise but not Kobe, no and I probably wouldn't right at the moment to be honest.
BROWN: When opinion turns on you, it turns hard. Today, Bryant gets blamed for everything gone wrong with his once storied Lakers. He couldn't get along with the team's other star Shaquille O'Neal. He couldn't get along with the coach either. He wanted the spotlight all to himself, the writers write, a sort of death by column inch.
WERTHEIM: Quite apart from the legal issues, I just think on the floor Kobe isn't regarded as the player he once was. You combine that with all he's gone through and the bloodless coup of Phil Jackson, who of course is a storied coach who Kobe basically sort of cut loose and you put all that together and I think you could certainly make the case that it will take something really remarkable for us not to look back on him and say that his career peaked in 2003.
BROWN: Which doesn't mean he won't be rich and famous. It doesn't mean he won't be an all-star or win more championships but it does mean something. It means he won't be like Mike or Larry or Magic.
Whatever exactly went on in that room in Colorado, whatever went on that led to a rape charge that led to an apology that led to tonight's settlement, whatever it was virtually guarantees that if nothing else.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/02/asb.01.html
In a world where men keep their virginity all their lives with moves like "Hail Mary" in THE END ZONE, this is the biggest media travesty this woman has ever witnessed in her lifetime.
A young lady has intercoarse with her lover, is seduced into the room of a Lakers basketball star, is raped and sent on her way. Does the right thing by reporting to police. What ensued was a media frenzy to elevate Kobe Bryant to save 'the game' (of every nature) and save 'his worth' at the Stock Exchange.
Amazing.
A woman was given a $4 million dollar ring to control her loyalty in marriage while another woman was virtually 'screwed' out of a reputation, ridiculed only to receive financial compensation without justice. Her life was one of pain to begin with and now she'll like so many others will never feel vindicated but only pandered to while the media continues to elevate and return Kobe's Commercial Virginity.
The victim in this case continues to be 'the woman' who still is treated as a second class citizen and no one knows that better than the Denver Colorado Prosecutor. I hope the lady raked him over the coals for a bundle. At least $4.1 million !!
Justice has yet to be served. Blood on his shirt. Really? Sounds like 'Safe and Controlled Sex between strangers if I ever heard it.'
Shares in Kobe is still worth something today.
Kobe_Bryant_Basketball.jpg)
BROWN: Late word out of Denver tonight, basketball star Kobe Bryant has settled a civil lawsuit brought by the woman who claims that he raped her in 2003. Mr. Bryant has maintained that their sexual encounter was consensual, though he has apologized and he said he now understand that she didn't see it as consensual. Criminal charges were dropped when the woman refused to testify. So, the settlement brings an end to the matter but something happened to Kobe Bryant along the way. His image has lost its luster.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN (voice-over): For most of his career on the basketball court, he has been sublime, made rich on the court, richer off it. If Allen Iverson was hip-hop, Kobe Bryant was Madison Avenue by design.
JOHN WERTHEIM, "SPORTS ILLUSTRATED": With the exception of Michael Jordan, you're unlikely to find a basketball player who is more meticulous about his image, everything from how he appears in public. He's very selective about his endorsements. BROWN: But one night in Colorado changed all of that. At the very least, it led to a public and messy admission of adultery and far worse to charges of rape. Kobe Bryant went from the perfect transition, from the era of Michael, to an accused sex offender and even in these days sex offenders don't sell much soda or candy bars.
WERTHEIM: This has done irrevocable economic harm to Kobe Bryant and it also has does harm in that sort of ineffable, incalculable sort of buzz image factor.
BROWN: Whatever exactly happened in Colorado that night he is, to be sure, no longer the NBA's golden goose, not untouchable exactly but no longer money in the bank either. His jersey used to be a top seller, no more.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've got Lakers merchandise but not Kobe, no and I probably wouldn't right at the moment to be honest.
BROWN: When opinion turns on you, it turns hard. Today, Bryant gets blamed for everything gone wrong with his once storied Lakers. He couldn't get along with the team's other star Shaquille O'Neal. He couldn't get along with the coach either. He wanted the spotlight all to himself, the writers write, a sort of death by column inch.
WERTHEIM: Quite apart from the legal issues, I just think on the floor Kobe isn't regarded as the player he once was. You combine that with all he's gone through and the bloodless coup of Phil Jackson, who of course is a storied coach who Kobe basically sort of cut loose and you put all that together and I think you could certainly make the case that it will take something really remarkable for us not to look back on him and say that his career peaked in 2003.
BROWN: Which doesn't mean he won't be rich and famous. It doesn't mean he won't be an all-star or win more championships but it does mean something. It means he won't be like Mike or Larry or Magic.
Whatever exactly went on in that room in Colorado, whatever went on that led to a rape charge that led to an apology that led to tonight's settlement, whatever it was virtually guarantees that if nothing else.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/02/asb.01.html
In a world where men keep their virginity all their lives with moves like "Hail Mary" in THE END ZONE, this is the biggest media travesty this woman has ever witnessed in her lifetime.
A young lady has intercoarse with her lover, is seduced into the room of a Lakers basketball star, is raped and sent on her way. Does the right thing by reporting to police. What ensued was a media frenzy to elevate Kobe Bryant to save 'the game' (of every nature) and save 'his worth' at the Stock Exchange.
Amazing.
A woman was given a $4 million dollar ring to control her loyalty in marriage while another woman was virtually 'screwed' out of a reputation, ridiculed only to receive financial compensation without justice. Her life was one of pain to begin with and now she'll like so many others will never feel vindicated but only pandered to while the media continues to elevate and return Kobe's Commercial Virginity.
The victim in this case continues to be 'the woman' who still is treated as a second class citizen and no one knows that better than the Denver Colorado Prosecutor. I hope the lady raked him over the coals for a bundle. At least $4.1 million !!
Justice has yet to be served. Blood on his shirt. Really? Sounds like 'Safe and Controlled Sex between strangers if I ever heard it.'
Shares in Kobe is still worth something today.
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
The Constution of The United States of America
Today in History, March 4...
...1787, The United States Congress meets for the first time in New York City, and the U.S. Constitution goes into effect.
The Constitution of this country has inspired a country grounded in equity and democracy while acting as an example to the world what the 'concept' of Freedom can bring to valuing the individual as upheld by The Burger Court.
Today in History, March 4...
...1787, The United States Congress meets for the first time in New York City, and the U.S. Constitution goes into effect.
The Constitution of this country has inspired a country grounded in equity and democracy while acting as an example to the world what the 'concept' of Freedom can bring to valuing the individual as upheld by The Burger Court.
Missing in Action, Soldiers and an Administration of the People
Missing in Action
1963 JACOBSON ELLWOOD L. REMAINS RECOVERED
1963 MAKEL JANIE A. 03/06/63 REMAINS RECOVERED
1966 ANDREWS STUART M STAMFORD CT
1966 CONLON JOHN F. WILKES BARRE PA
1967 CARLOCK RALPH L. DES PLAINES IL
1969 GUFFEY JERRY 03/04/69 ESCAPED
1970 PARKER JOHN J. TALLAHASSEE FL
1971 ALLWINE DAVID R. PHOENIX AZ 03/27/73 RELEASED BY PRG ALIVE AND WELL 98
1971 ALGAARD HAROLD L. FOSSTON MN "RADIO CONTACT LOST, SAR NEG"
1971 HENTZ RICHARD J. OSHKOSH WI "RADIO CONTACT LOST, SAR NEG"
1971 MARKER MICHAEL W. WICHITA FALLS TX "RADIO CONTACT LOST, SAR NEG"
1971 OSBORNE RODNEY D. KENT WA "RADIO CONTACT LOST, SAR NEG"
1971 STRAWN JOHN T. SALEM OR "RADIO CONTACT LOST, SAR NEG"
http://www.scopesys.com/today/
Slipping into an Altered Reality
The Current Administration has no regard for the USA or it's incredible history. An article in the St. Petersburg Times sparked a reality that falls completely in line with the negligence of the Bush/Cheney White House to provide an Economic Strategy not a haphazard 'gamble' for an economy.
The earliest day of George Walker Bush proved to send a huge amount of jobs overseas and primarily to Asia where his brother Neil Bush is a power broker with a lifestyle that is hardly based in Evangelical Christian beliefs.
The lack of a clear direction of strategy for Economic Reform has presented in 'wild' Dreamscapes of 'toying' with Social Security without any particulars. Bush presents himself as if a visionary who like his 'preacher' demeanor will 'inspire' changes he never conceptualizes. Anyone, including draconian profiteers, 'takes on the challenge' directing Federal Policy into concrete plans. "Dubya" simply approves of 'the brainstorming' of those who care to rescue his pathetic administration as if he is the genius who has saved the USA from long established policy headed for disaster.
George Walker Bush and Richard Cheney are frauds. They have not even a vision except for their own personal wealth.
The St. Petersburg Times, "GOING FORWARD…"
Tweak it, or blow it up?
Readers differ on the income tax system they want, but unite in calling for changes to the current one.
By HELEN HUNTLEY, Times Personal Finance Editor
Published February 6, 2005
St. Petersburg Times readers have some advice for President Bush: Get rid of the income tax system as we know it.
"The arcane federal tax code is long overdue for major reform or elimination," said Jim McBaine, 59, of Largo, one of about 70 readers who wrote with suggestions for tax reform.
… Neil Cosentino, 68, of Tampa promotes what he calls "a national ownership based tax structure." He says everyone would pay a minimum tax, but most revenue would come from taxes on the value of investments and businesses.
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/06/Business/Tweak_it__or_blow_it_.shtml
Sound right?
Why rewrite what is already written, GOING FORWARD?
conti2005 - 8:22 PM ET March 3, 2005 (#11809 of 11984)
Democrats and Independents Get It RIGHT the FIRST TIME
You are not getting the whole picture...
Bankrupt Bankruptcy Bill
... when you look at where the country is headed you have to realize the picture Bush and the Repuglicans are working out is so obsure to the majority of Americans we are lost in a maze of 'What the heck?' most of the time.
I was floundering with Bush's insistance on changing Social Security and why Alan Greenspan would seem to overtly to change 180 degree direction over night until I ran across an old article in The St. Petersburg Times that hit a nerve.
Bush pushes 'ownership' and 'privatization' for social security?
We are all thinking familiarity with 401Ks and Roth IRAs.
"W"rong.
Dig this.
A complete change in the way one lives their lives based not on work ethics, skills and income from earnings.
Nothing like that.
Bush frequently states, "Today was good news for job seekers."
Try a society whereby ONLY INVESTMENT is the only 'risky business' a household bases their income only to 'work at a job' when all is lost on a bad investment.
St. Petersburg Times
Tweak it, or blow it up?
Readers differ on the income tax system they want, but unite in calling for changes to the current one.
By HELEN HUNTLEY, Times Personal Finance Editor
Published February 6, 2005
St. Petersburg Times readers have some advice for President Bush: Get rid of the income tax system as we know it.
"The arcane federal tax code is long overdue for major reform or elimination," said Jim McBaine, 59, of Largo, one of about 70 readers who wrote with suggestions for tax reform.
… Neil Cosentino, 68, of Tampa promotes what he calls "a national ownership based tax structure." He says everyone would pay a minimum tax, but most revenue would come from taxes on the value of investments and businesses.
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/06/Business/Tweak_it__or_blow_it_.shtml [...]
Sound right?
At least we all know where we are headed with the 'Boy from the Oil Barons of Texas.'
conti2005 - 8:36 PM ET March 3, 2005 (#11828 of 11983)
Democrats and Independents Get It RIGHT the FIRST TIME
That might be so...
patth #11817 8:26 PM ET 3/3/2005
... but before the country changes laws requiring Americans to be responsible, the country itself will have to dig itself out of fiscal debt.
That article from The St. Petersburg Times is huge.
Realize, Patty, what the administration has done. They literally without even a conversation with congress redirected jobs overseas to where Neil Bush lives, they have cut taxes to the bone and as they put it, '...to encourage investment...' and literally is feeding off the globe now and the 'good graces' of the American Dollar for nearly two years now.
This is Don Evan's Dream for Every American. The flag waving idiot he is. He and Bush once sat together and was asked 'What about jobs?' The literally said, "Well, we just don't know; we have to see what develops."
Now that might sound like solid conservative economic strategy to some but when you realize Bush is getting a 'hard on' over Junior Colleges when undercutting funding to them, you have to realize this is a covert way to undermine the work force in this country while sending them to places like Iraq and Halliburton and at the same time allowing 'illegal aliens' to have status to provide the lowest paid labor force in the country.
What are the 'Wonder Boys' trying to pull off? They are hoping people get either greedy enough or hungry enough to find dirt cheap labor and a way to make money to support their family away from welfare and food stamps.
Realize, Patty, this is an economic strategy at play now for over four years. Four flyin' years. It has failed and not only that it is sending this country to where Argentina used to live while at the same time convincing Alan Greenspan this is the best direction for the country.
The $2 trillion is for continued investment into CONVERTING the economy into an investment economy.
At least we all know where we are headed with the 'Boy from the Oil Barons of Texas.' I don't see this 'AGENDA' "going forward."
…………………………………….
Dr. Krugman has been on the trail of The Bush Agenda of "Starve the Beast" of years now. Today, it would seem 'going forward' the conservative economic disaster that is Bush has not only crashed the USA Dollar but created a National Security issue. The type of national security issue Homeland Security is incapable of guarding against.
Deficits and Deceit
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Four years ago, Alan Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, asserting that the federal government was in imminent danger of paying off too much debt.
On Wednesday the Fed chairman warned Congress of the opposite fiscal danger: he asserted that there would be large budget deficits for the foreseeable future, leading to an unsustainable rise in federal debt. But he counseled against reversing the tax cuts, calling instead for cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Does anyone still take Mr. Greenspan's pose as a nonpartisan font of wisdom seriously?
When Mr. Greenspan made his contorted argument for tax cuts back in 2001, his reputation made it hard for many observers to admit the obvious: he was mainly looking for some way to do the Bush administration a political favor. But there's no reason to be taken in by his equally weak, contorted argument against reversing those cuts today.
To put Mr. Greenspan's game of fiscal three-card monte in perspective, remember that the push for Social Security privatization is only part of the right's strategy for dismantling the New Deal and the Great Society. The other big piece of that strategy is the use of tax cuts to "starve the beast."
Until the 1970's conservatives tended to be open about their disdain for Social Security and Medicare. But honesty was bad politics, because voters value those programs.
So conservative intellectuals proposed a bait-and-switch strategy: First, advocate tax cuts, using whatever tactics you think may work - supply-side economics, inflated budget projections, whatever. Then use the resulting deficits to argue for slashing government spending.
And that's the story of the last four years. In 2001, President Bush and Mr. Greenspan justified tax cuts with sunny predictions that the budget would remain comfortably in surplus. But Mr. Bush's advisers knew that the tax cuts would probably cause budget problems, and welcomed the prospect.
In fact, Mr. Bush celebrated the budget's initial slide into deficit. In the summer of 2001 he called plunging federal revenue "incredibly positive news" because it would "put a straitjacket" on federal spending.
To keep that straitjacket on, however, those who sold tax cuts with the assurance that they were easily affordable must convince the public that the cuts can't be reversed now that those assurances have proved false. And Mr. Greenspan has once again tried to come to the president's aid, insisting this week that we should deal with deficits "primarily, if not wholly," by slashing Social Security and Medicare because tax increases would "pose significant risks to economic growth."
Really? America prospered for half a century under a level of federal taxes higher than the one we face today. According to the administration's own estimates, Mr. Bush's second term will see the lowest tax take as a percentage of G.D.P. since the Truman administration. And don't forget that President Clinton's 1993 tax increase ushered in an economic boom. Why, exactly, are tax increases out of the question?
O.K., enough about Mr. Greenspan. The real news is the growing evidence that the political theory behind the Bush tax cuts was as wrong as the economic theory.
According to starve-the-beast doctrine, right-wing politicians can use the big deficits generated by tax cuts as an excuse to slash social insurance programs. Mr. Bush's advisers thought that it would prove especially easy to sell benefit cuts in the context of Social Security privatization because the president could pretend that a plan that sharply cut benefits would actually be good for workers.
But the theory isn't working. As soon as voters heard that privatization would involve benefit cuts, support for Social Security "reform" plunged. Another sign of the theory's falsity: across the nation, Republican governors, finding that voters really want adequate public services, are talking about tax increases.
The best bet now is that Mr. Bush will manage to make the poor suffer, but fail to make a dent in the great middle-class entitlement programs.
And the consequence of the failure of the starve-the-beast theory is a looming fiscal crisis - Mr. Greenspan isn't wrong about that. The middle class won't give up programs that are essential to its financial security; the right won't give up tax cuts that it sold on false pretenses. The only question now is when foreign investors, who have financed our deficits so far, will decide to pull the plug.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/opinion/04krugman.html?pagewanted=print&position=
1963 JACOBSON ELLWOOD L. REMAINS RECOVERED
1963 MAKEL JANIE A. 03/06/63 REMAINS RECOVERED
1966 ANDREWS STUART M STAMFORD CT
1966 CONLON JOHN F. WILKES BARRE PA
1967 CARLOCK RALPH L. DES PLAINES IL
1969 GUFFEY JERRY 03/04/69 ESCAPED
1970 PARKER JOHN J. TALLAHASSEE FL
1971 ALLWINE DAVID R. PHOENIX AZ 03/27/73 RELEASED BY PRG ALIVE AND WELL 98
1971 ALGAARD HAROLD L. FOSSTON MN "RADIO CONTACT LOST, SAR NEG"
1971 HENTZ RICHARD J. OSHKOSH WI "RADIO CONTACT LOST, SAR NEG"
1971 MARKER MICHAEL W. WICHITA FALLS TX "RADIO CONTACT LOST, SAR NEG"
1971 OSBORNE RODNEY D. KENT WA "RADIO CONTACT LOST, SAR NEG"
1971 STRAWN JOHN T. SALEM OR "RADIO CONTACT LOST, SAR NEG"
http://www.scopesys.com/today/
Slipping into an Altered Reality
The Current Administration has no regard for the USA or it's incredible history. An article in the St. Petersburg Times sparked a reality that falls completely in line with the negligence of the Bush/Cheney White House to provide an Economic Strategy not a haphazard 'gamble' for an economy.
The earliest day of George Walker Bush proved to send a huge amount of jobs overseas and primarily to Asia where his brother Neil Bush is a power broker with a lifestyle that is hardly based in Evangelical Christian beliefs.
The lack of a clear direction of strategy for Economic Reform has presented in 'wild' Dreamscapes of 'toying' with Social Security without any particulars. Bush presents himself as if a visionary who like his 'preacher' demeanor will 'inspire' changes he never conceptualizes. Anyone, including draconian profiteers, 'takes on the challenge' directing Federal Policy into concrete plans. "Dubya" simply approves of 'the brainstorming' of those who care to rescue his pathetic administration as if he is the genius who has saved the USA from long established policy headed for disaster.
George Walker Bush and Richard Cheney are frauds. They have not even a vision except for their own personal wealth.
The St. Petersburg Times, "GOING FORWARD…"
Tweak it, or blow it up?
Readers differ on the income tax system they want, but unite in calling for changes to the current one.
By HELEN HUNTLEY, Times Personal Finance Editor
Published February 6, 2005
St. Petersburg Times readers have some advice for President Bush: Get rid of the income tax system as we know it.
"The arcane federal tax code is long overdue for major reform or elimination," said Jim McBaine, 59, of Largo, one of about 70 readers who wrote with suggestions for tax reform.
… Neil Cosentino, 68, of Tampa promotes what he calls "a national ownership based tax structure." He says everyone would pay a minimum tax, but most revenue would come from taxes on the value of investments and businesses.
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/06/Business/Tweak_it__or_blow_it_.shtml
Sound right?
Why rewrite what is already written, GOING FORWARD?
conti2005 - 8:22 PM ET March 3, 2005 (#11809 of 11984)
Democrats and Independents Get It RIGHT the FIRST TIME
You are not getting the whole picture...
Bankrupt Bankruptcy Bill
... when you look at where the country is headed you have to realize the picture Bush and the Repuglicans are working out is so obsure to the majority of Americans we are lost in a maze of 'What the heck?' most of the time.
I was floundering with Bush's insistance on changing Social Security and why Alan Greenspan would seem to overtly to change 180 degree direction over night until I ran across an old article in The St. Petersburg Times that hit a nerve.
Bush pushes 'ownership' and 'privatization' for social security?
We are all thinking familiarity with 401Ks and Roth IRAs.
"W"rong.
Dig this.
A complete change in the way one lives their lives based not on work ethics, skills and income from earnings.
Nothing like that.
Bush frequently states, "Today was good news for job seekers."
Try a society whereby ONLY INVESTMENT is the only 'risky business' a household bases their income only to 'work at a job' when all is lost on a bad investment.
St. Petersburg Times
Tweak it, or blow it up?
Readers differ on the income tax system they want, but unite in calling for changes to the current one.
By HELEN HUNTLEY, Times Personal Finance Editor
Published February 6, 2005
St. Petersburg Times readers have some advice for President Bush: Get rid of the income tax system as we know it.
"The arcane federal tax code is long overdue for major reform or elimination," said Jim McBaine, 59, of Largo, one of about 70 readers who wrote with suggestions for tax reform.
… Neil Cosentino, 68, of Tampa promotes what he calls "a national ownership based tax structure." He says everyone would pay a minimum tax, but most revenue would come from taxes on the value of investments and businesses.
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
..."a national ownership based tax structure."
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/06/Business/Tweak_it__or_blow_it_.shtml [...]
Sound right?
At least we all know where we are headed with the 'Boy from the Oil Barons of Texas.'
conti2005 - 8:36 PM ET March 3, 2005 (#11828 of 11983)
Democrats and Independents Get It RIGHT the FIRST TIME
That might be so...
patth #11817 8:26 PM ET 3/3/2005
... but before the country changes laws requiring Americans to be responsible, the country itself will have to dig itself out of fiscal debt.
That article from The St. Petersburg Times is huge.
Realize, Patty, what the administration has done. They literally without even a conversation with congress redirected jobs overseas to where Neil Bush lives, they have cut taxes to the bone and as they put it, '...to encourage investment...' and literally is feeding off the globe now and the 'good graces' of the American Dollar for nearly two years now.
This is Don Evan's Dream for Every American. The flag waving idiot he is. He and Bush once sat together and was asked 'What about jobs?' The literally said, "Well, we just don't know; we have to see what develops."
Now that might sound like solid conservative economic strategy to some but when you realize Bush is getting a 'hard on' over Junior Colleges when undercutting funding to them, you have to realize this is a covert way to undermine the work force in this country while sending them to places like Iraq and Halliburton and at the same time allowing 'illegal aliens' to have status to provide the lowest paid labor force in the country.
What are the 'Wonder Boys' trying to pull off? They are hoping people get either greedy enough or hungry enough to find dirt cheap labor and a way to make money to support their family away from welfare and food stamps.
Realize, Patty, this is an economic strategy at play now for over four years. Four flyin' years. It has failed and not only that it is sending this country to where Argentina used to live while at the same time convincing Alan Greenspan this is the best direction for the country.
The $2 trillion is for continued investment into CONVERTING the economy into an investment economy.
At least we all know where we are headed with the 'Boy from the Oil Barons of Texas.' I don't see this 'AGENDA' "going forward."
…………………………………….
Dr. Krugman has been on the trail of The Bush Agenda of "Starve the Beast" of years now. Today, it would seem 'going forward' the conservative economic disaster that is Bush has not only crashed the USA Dollar but created a National Security issue. The type of national security issue Homeland Security is incapable of guarding against.
Deficits and Deceit
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Four years ago, Alan Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, asserting that the federal government was in imminent danger of paying off too much debt.
On Wednesday the Fed chairman warned Congress of the opposite fiscal danger: he asserted that there would be large budget deficits for the foreseeable future, leading to an unsustainable rise in federal debt. But he counseled against reversing the tax cuts, calling instead for cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Does anyone still take Mr. Greenspan's pose as a nonpartisan font of wisdom seriously?
When Mr. Greenspan made his contorted argument for tax cuts back in 2001, his reputation made it hard for many observers to admit the obvious: he was mainly looking for some way to do the Bush administration a political favor. But there's no reason to be taken in by his equally weak, contorted argument against reversing those cuts today.
To put Mr. Greenspan's game of fiscal three-card monte in perspective, remember that the push for Social Security privatization is only part of the right's strategy for dismantling the New Deal and the Great Society. The other big piece of that strategy is the use of tax cuts to "starve the beast."
Until the 1970's conservatives tended to be open about their disdain for Social Security and Medicare. But honesty was bad politics, because voters value those programs.
So conservative intellectuals proposed a bait-and-switch strategy: First, advocate tax cuts, using whatever tactics you think may work - supply-side economics, inflated budget projections, whatever. Then use the resulting deficits to argue for slashing government spending.
And that's the story of the last four years. In 2001, President Bush and Mr. Greenspan justified tax cuts with sunny predictions that the budget would remain comfortably in surplus. But Mr. Bush's advisers knew that the tax cuts would probably cause budget problems, and welcomed the prospect.
In fact, Mr. Bush celebrated the budget's initial slide into deficit. In the summer of 2001 he called plunging federal revenue "incredibly positive news" because it would "put a straitjacket" on federal spending.
To keep that straitjacket on, however, those who sold tax cuts with the assurance that they were easily affordable must convince the public that the cuts can't be reversed now that those assurances have proved false. And Mr. Greenspan has once again tried to come to the president's aid, insisting this week that we should deal with deficits "primarily, if not wholly," by slashing Social Security and Medicare because tax increases would "pose significant risks to economic growth."
Really? America prospered for half a century under a level of federal taxes higher than the one we face today. According to the administration's own estimates, Mr. Bush's second term will see the lowest tax take as a percentage of G.D.P. since the Truman administration. And don't forget that President Clinton's 1993 tax increase ushered in an economic boom. Why, exactly, are tax increases out of the question?
O.K., enough about Mr. Greenspan. The real news is the growing evidence that the political theory behind the Bush tax cuts was as wrong as the economic theory.
According to starve-the-beast doctrine, right-wing politicians can use the big deficits generated by tax cuts as an excuse to slash social insurance programs. Mr. Bush's advisers thought that it would prove especially easy to sell benefit cuts in the context of Social Security privatization because the president could pretend that a plan that sharply cut benefits would actually be good for workers.
But the theory isn't working. As soon as voters heard that privatization would involve benefit cuts, support for Social Security "reform" plunged. Another sign of the theory's falsity: across the nation, Republican governors, finding that voters really want adequate public services, are talking about tax increases.
The best bet now is that Mr. Bush will manage to make the poor suffer, but fail to make a dent in the great middle-class entitlement programs.
And the consequence of the failure of the starve-the-beast theory is a looming fiscal crisis - Mr. Greenspan isn't wrong about that. The middle class won't give up programs that are essential to its financial security; the right won't give up tax cuts that it sold on false pretenses. The only question now is when foreign investors, who have financed our deficits so far, will decide to pull the plug.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/opinion/04krugman.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Now, all we need is a catastrophe.
US House passes bill on special election
www.chinaview.cn 2005-03-04 06:04:18
WASHINGTON, March 3 (Xinhuanet) -- The US House of Representativespassed a bill Thursday requiring special elections to be held within 49 days if more than 100 of its 435 members were killed in a catastrophic event.
The House voted by 329 to 68 to send the bill to the Senate. A similar bill was killed in the Senate last year after House approval.
Last year, the House rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have permitted replacement by temporary appointments during exceptional circumstances.
Supporters of the proposed constitutional amendment said while 49 days would be too short to organize a special election, it was too long to leave the House with so many vacancies.
The US Constitution states all House members must be elected. Senate vacancies can be temporarily filled with gubernatorial appointments.
The House bill was seen as a precautionary measure to prepare for catastrophic events such as the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, which forced the evacuation of the Capitol. Enditem
www.chinaview.cn 2005-03-04 06:04:18
WASHINGTON, March 3 (Xinhuanet) -- The US House of Representativespassed a bill Thursday requiring special elections to be held within 49 days if more than 100 of its 435 members were killed in a catastrophic event.
The House voted by 329 to 68 to send the bill to the Senate. A similar bill was killed in the Senate last year after House approval.
Last year, the House rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have permitted replacement by temporary appointments during exceptional circumstances.
Supporters of the proposed constitutional amendment said while 49 days would be too short to organize a special election, it was too long to leave the House with so many vacancies.
The US Constitution states all House members must be elected. Senate vacancies can be temporarily filled with gubernatorial appointments.
The House bill was seen as a precautionary measure to prepare for catastrophic events such as the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, which forced the evacuation of the Capitol. Enditem
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)