A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

AFTA: I admit it, Obama's starting to worry me on this one

Posted: May 16, 2015

I responded to someone below that the GOP politicians were smarter than people think, very capable of accurately assessing the attitudes and motivations of their constituents. However, I "try" to evaluate all our leaders without blinders, so I have to be fair and wonder - has Obama done that to us left-leaning Independents and Dems, too?

Because his lame-duck stuff is starting to worry me.

What do other Dems and left leaners think of him trying to fast-track the deal through like this?

Whenever anyone tries to "fast track" bills through, I raise an eyebrow (Keystone) - it usually means there's something wrong with it that more time would figure out.

I personally think it would lead to more outsourcing and unregulated products causing health and safety concerns, not to mention more exploitations of international workers, perhaps even children, and how could we enforce labor laws?

I can't understand since most Dems are against it - why is he doing this then?

And look, NOW Republican Congress members are finally all about passing through Obama's bill - yay "more possible exploitation, overcharging for unsafe/unhealthy/shoddy products means more money, woo hoo"

I find this very, very odd. One has to wonder - what shares do you hold, President Obama, that you'd go against your own party to rush through this plan much?

It could be a "back-scratching" bill deal ifor passing one of HIS bills later n the works too, I guess.

What do you all think, left, middle AND right about this?

(Just a quick personal request/encouragment that we all try to keep this polite - but as always, freedom of speech for everyone according to their personality - or frustration level;)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-presses-case-for-asia-trade-deal-warns-failure-would-benefit-china-1430160415?mg=id-wsj

;

I'm against it because no one knows what's in it. - You have to be a big corporation

[ In Reply To ..]
or a politician to read it. It has something to do with food safety reform...is this is saying that the bill would prevent any attempts to make food safer???

And this is designed to benefit whom, exactly? Certainly not consumers.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/12/cant-read-tpp-heres-huge-corporations-can/

and I forgot to say I'm a conservative and I'm - against it, in case that matters.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
xx

Nope, doesn't matter to me at least. Thanks for your opinion. Shows underneath labels - we're more alike than we think -JS

[ In Reply To ..]
We just disagree on how to best resolve our problems sometimes

I find it odd myself, especially that the Republicans - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
are all for it. It's strange.

Are the Democrats against it because the Republicans are for it? That seems to be what has been happening since the Republicans have the majority now. Especially when I see Harry Reid still hammering the Republicans and anything they tried to do when he was Senate leader as if he was still the leader.

Obama wants what he wants when he wants it. It's always been that way, since day one but he's been a little more low keyed about it (smiling while arguing but still not working with Congress) but now he seems to be getting more "spiteful" and doesn't seem to care what anyone thinks about him now.

This deal is a hush-hush-behind-closed-doors deal just like a lot of other bills Obama wanted passed (that some people forget about) in the past 6 years, but NOW he decides he wants to work with Republicans? I think it's a little too late for that.

We can all email our representatives and maybe get a canned response but they will do what they want to do. It's not about the people anymore. It's about how much their pockets are going to expand.

This is similar to NAFTA. The majority of Democrats voted against NAFTA. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
President Bush 41 wanted NAFTA, it was the Republicans' baby, and Republicans got NAFTA passed and President Clinton signed it.

I see this bill as very similar to NAFTA in that the Republicans and the President want it while the majority of Democrats in Congress do not.

In my opinion, regardless of whether or not you agree with the legislation, and I too disagree with this TPP, I think it's never too late for Congress and the President to work together since that is actually what they are elected to do. The president sets the agenda and asks the Congress to enact it.

Harry Reid is the Minority Leader, and it's his job to do what he's doing. He represents the minority just like he used to represent the majority in the Senate. He's actually doing what he's paid to do, even if you don't like his methods or agree with his policies, for which policies he follows the cues of the President of the United States (most of the time) who sets the agenda of the party he represents. You seem to fault Obama for not setting a conservative agenda rather than enacting the liberal agenda that he campaigned on and was elected to champion........ twice. Notwithstanding this TPP bill, I personally don't care for myself since I don't know what's in it, I still believe Obama has largely done what the majority elected him to do. He didn't just decide to work with Republicans; I think he really wants this trade deal (for whatever reasons I cannot fathom), and finally what he wants and what they want are similar. Obama's platform was quite clear both times, and he won both times and has endeavored to do what he was elected to do.

I agree that Congress does not give a hang what the people want. This reminds me so much of NAFTA where the majority of Democrats were against it, and the POTUS and Republicans got it passed and signed into law.

NAFTA was passed during the Clinton years - with bipartisan support. I'll

[ In Reply To ..]
never forget Ross Perot saying that "giant sucking sound" about it. Not all of us on the right were for that. It seems to have benefited Mexico the most, but it did lower trade barriers. There is no such thing as ungoverned trade except for illicit drugs, weapons, and prostitutes.

Again it was part of a series of efforts to redistribute wealth from America to other countries.

Bill Clinton also gave us welfare reform which - Obama changed. NM

[ In Reply To ..]
NM

NAFTA was passed by the #1 Bush but expanded under Clinton - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
It was the North American Free Trade Agreement. It was really started by Reagan under a different name but never came up for a vote. It passed under George H.W. Bush and it was only between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

Clinton added 2 more "acts" to it which expanded it.

As for stating Dems were against it, nope. Clinton's version had 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats in the House and 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats in the Senate voting to expand it.

Does this sound familiar? "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement." - Bill Clinton 1993.

I remember listening to talk radio then and listening to all the truck - drivers who called

[ In Reply To ..]
with their concerns. Free trade isn't really free when the US has all these restrictions and the traders don't. I remember hearing outsourcing to Mexico and the rest of the Third World is the other side of the illegal immigration coin,“insourcing” Third World labor and culture. Let's see in Mexico....No EPA....no minimum wage....no exorbitant welfare system.....no blood sucking union....no extortionist government bureaucratic government. I do understand the business-unfriendly environment we have here.

All a pure free trade agreement should do is lower the costs of sending goods and service across international borders. Yes, there could be some job losses due to inequities of costs for various reasons, but that would be a consequence, not an intent.

The two biggest reasons why the US is losing out is its inefficient tax code and the regulations businesses must follow to stay in business. For example, there are something like 86,000 pages of tax law.

Fix these two things and you will see the economy thrive big-time.

Half Correct on NAFTA - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
This poster said: "It was the North American Free Trade Agreement. It was really started by Reagan under a different name but never came up for a vote. It passed under George H.W. Bush and it was only between the U.S., Mexico and Canada."

That's close but actually backwards; it actually did come up for a vote under Reagan but never came up for a vote under Bush 41.

The precursor to NAFTA was called the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement. It was indeed the handiwork of the Reagan Administration. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act, which gave the President fast-track authority to negotiate free trade agreements while allowing Congress the ability to vote "yes" or "no" on the agreements and not change the negotiated terms (same thing Obama is trying to get for the Trans-Pacific Partnership - TPP). The CUSFTA was negotiated and presented to Congress and passed in the House and Senate on September 9, 1988 and went into effect in 1989.

Meanwhile in 1989, Bush 41 became president. President Bush and President Salinas began negotiations for trade between the US and Mexico. In 1991, Canada requested a trilateral agreement, which then led to NAFTA which superseded Reagan's CUSFTA. Bush 41 had worked to fast track NAFTA, but never got the authority from Congress.

In November 1992, Bill Clinton became the president elect, defeating Bush 41 and making him a "lame duck" president. On December 17, 1992, President Bush, Prime Minister Mulroney, and President Salinas signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, which then needed to be ratified by each country. Bush 41 being a lame duck president with no fast track on NAFTA and no time left in his presidency, it was handed to the incoming Clinton Administration the following month in January 1993 for ratification.

This poster said: "As for stating Dems were against it, nope. Clinton's version had 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats in the House and 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats in the Senate voting to expand it.

First off, it wasn't "Clinton's version." It was the original NAFTA agreement of Bush 41, but since the MAJORITY of Democrats were opposed to it, in order to get some kind of Democratic support for the Republicans' handiwork that was NAFTA, Clinton had to add two side agreements: the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment (he had to add liberal causes to get liberals votes). Even after adding those two side agreements, the MAJORITY of Democrats were still opposed. When it was put to a vote in the House 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats supported it: 75% of Republicans but only 40% of Democrats. In the Senate, the vote was 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats: 77% of Republicans and 49% of Democrats.

So again, the MAJORITY of Democrats opposed it and had to be placated and wooed with the side agreements into supporting it. NAFTA was largely passed by Republican votes. I'm not giving the Democrats a pass at all in this; it definitely was passed with bipartisan support, but Democrats were the ones who were largely against it. Nevertheless, it was passed in November 1993 and signed into law by Bill Clinton in December 1993.

I've spent decades listening to Republicans complain about Bill Clinton and Democrats "screwing" the United States with NAFTA when anyone with two brain cells to rub together would realize that this is simply disingenuous and untrue since Democrats demanded to have provisions added to protect workers and the environment in order to be cajoled into voting for it, and still the majority of Democrats opposed it while the Republican support for NAFTA was overwhelming at 75% and it was Ronald Reagan's baby starting with CUSFTA and Bush 41 with NAFTA handed off to Clinton to ratify and sign into law.

Now why does any of this matter now? History again seems to be repeating itself. The United States joined the negotiations regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2008 under the Bush 43 Administration. After a period of reflection on U.S. trade policy, the Obama Administration decided to continue with the negotiations. Fast forward, and just like NAFTA, the Republicans are largely for it, and the Democrats are largely against it and fighting the Democratic POTUS who is for it. Sounds familiar to me.

I think the middle class has been getting the shaft for a number of reasons, too numerous to go into here, but NAFTA is on that list of reasons, and now President Obama is trying to "fast track" the TPP, Republicans are saying let him do it because it gives the President 6 years of fast track authority and if there's a Republican president next they can fast track all kinds of trade deals, and the Democrats are saying, as usual: What about labor and the workers?

The majority of Democrats oppose the "free trade" deal again, but in the end it's not likely to matter since Republicans are largely for it. History repeating itself.

in the old days Rep. presidents asked for and got - fast track, they did this because Democrats

[ In Reply To ..]
injected, not labor issues, but human rights issues into the grand mix of international negotiations, which was fine. Now it's a whole nuther agenda. It's all about the industries that are in favor in DC (Silicon Valley particularly, but banking/finance in a BIG WAY too) getting their payoff for a couple of decades of campaign finance.

And payola.

The money is THINK on K Street.

The program is to fleece America, not just stored capital...but to use America's capital to finance a fundamental transfer of wealth and power.

NAFTA is the reason we have all those different - varieties of fruits and vegetables

[ In Reply To ..]
in the stores. Free trade is only free when there are no restrictions both ways. The US always gets the shaft.

NAFTA is a managed trade agreement, it's not - really free trade, which is

[ In Reply To ..]
what really happens in the absence of laws and interference and it wasn't the free trade that killed jobs, it was the regulations on that free trade.

NAFTA was packaged well and easier to "sell" as - "free trade" but this is incognito

[ In Reply To ..]
and secret. It's weird.

Interesting info for confusing issue - just isn't as simple as

[ In Reply To ..]
pick your party and support or not, and decision requires some knowledge of economics and history.

I found this article interesting, perhaps not all encompassing.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/14/8606351/bernie-sanders-tpp-trade

AFTA mostly about internet while TPP is a combination of everything - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
(1) Intellectual Property Chapter: Leaked draft texts of the agreement show that the IP chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples' abilities to innovate.

(2) Lack of Transparency: The entire process has shut out multi-stakeholder participation and is shrouded in secrecy.

llectual Property Chapter: Leaked draft texts of the agreement show that the IP chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples' abilities to innovate.

(2) Lack of Transparency: The entire process has shut out multi-stakeholder participation and is shrouded in secrecy.

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

Then there's this:

https://www.stopfasttrack.com/

This is a 45-minute hearing held in January all about TPP.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?325414-4/washington-journal-lori-wallach-transpacific-partnership-trade-deal

This explains "fast track."
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2015/3/17/the-tpp-education-project-preface-fast-track-secret-deal-nafta

...and I'm more in the dark than ever on this deal. LOL

I've even read there are restrictions on ammo in it, - wonder if wikileaks has it NM

[ In Reply To ..]
xx

It doesn't really seem like free trade when there's a - $342 billion trade deficit

[ In Reply To ..]
and it seems more like getting bent over and ******.

The ‘free trade’ after World War II was heavily stacked in our favor. With much of European and east Asian manufacturing centers bombed out, post-war US industry was poised at best advantage to fill the vacuum. Those glory days are gone. Free trade now simply means doing it all in overseas sweatshops. We can't compete with that.

If Obama has sold out to Wall Street and the Republican establishment has sold out to Wall Street, and if we are shipping jobs abroad and importing illegal immigrants to fill jobs at home and neither Obama nor the Republican establishment is looking out for displaced American workers, that practice produces losers.

Free trade is great, but it’s only free trade if both side have the same tax and mandate burden. They don’t. And if free trade has to have an agreement with covenants, conditions and restrictions, it isn't free trade.

I hear a lot of level playing fields, but it isn't if we have a $342 billion trade deficit with China.

China is the biggest owner of US debt, and - having a piece of our debt

[ In Reply To ..]
allows them some measure of controlling policy that favors them.

Incorrect. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
China is the biggest FOREIGN owner of U.S. debt with Japan an extremely close second--Japan only losing their #1 spot back to China just days ago.

The majority of U.S. debt is owned by Americans with approximately 65% to 66%, around two-thirds of the U.S. national debt owed to the U.S. government, American investors, and future retirees through the Social Security Trust Fund and pension plans for civil service workers and military personnel.

Yes, "we the people" by far own the majority of our own debt. China owns approximately between 6.5% and 7% so don't let the media hype that we are "owned by China" fool you. We belong to US.

Since the topic was AFTA I just assumed foreign was the subject, - but you are correct, it is FOREIGN

[ In Reply To ..]
debt. I still don't feel any better.

In addition to that, they've probably made their - money back overall in

[ In Reply To ..]
interest so now for them it’s not really a cost anymore.

Well, no wonder the TPP reminded me of NAFTA - Found Something about TPP

[ In Reply To ..]
Turns out that the United States joined the negotiations regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2008 under the administration of George W. Bush. After a period of reflection on U.S. trade policy, the Obama Administration decided to continue with the negotiations. So this thing has been in the works since the Bush 43 Administration, very much like NAFTA that was signed by Bush 41 in December 1993 and then rolled over into the Clinton Administration that decided to complete negotiations. Clinton made a hard push to get his fellow Democrats to vote "yes" on NAFTA, but only managed to get about 40% support of Democrats, whereas 75% of Republicans voted "yes."

The TPP seems like a similar deal here, with a majority of Republicans backing it while Democrats are trying to block it. I don't think the TPP even has remotely close to the 40% Democrat support that NAFTA got. So far the Democrats have managed to block the thing, but Obama has a new buddy in the Senate that is pushing hard for its passage in Mitch McConnell. Weird!

Does anybody know where the Tea Party stands on this deal? I believe that Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, and Rand Paul have all come out in favor of this thing. Jeb Bush in favor too.

I don't like this whole TPP myself, certainly unless I get more information and facts instead of all the secrecy. Apparently this "free trade agreement" will alter some of the terms of NAFTA, as it includes new trade terms between the NAFTA parties of US, Mexico, and Canada and also includes Japan, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, and Peru.

Anyway, I did find some congressional research about it and attached it at the link below.

Maybe the Democrats can manage to stop the thing...... because just like NAFTA, it looks like a majority of Republicans are in favor of it so it's likely to eventually pass, and I don't like it one little bit unless somebody does a really good job of convincing me otherwise, which no one remotely seems to care what the people want!

And Obama is embracing it. Crony kickback - capitalism uniparty. I wonder

[ In Reply To ..]
what a representative government is like.

This new trade power will allow Obama to flood - the USA with hundreds of

[ In Reply To ..]
immigrants.

I hope treaties still can't override the Constitution, - or our sovereignty. They

[ In Reply To ..]
have the same force as legislation though.

We called them undocumented democrats, I read that - Disney was the testing ground

[ In Reply To ..]
for TTP. Disney got tax benefits for each US worker they replaced in their IT department with H1B immigrant that worked for 1/3 the cost. It is said that Disney US IT. employees had to train their H1B replacements for jobs located here in the USA.

The replacements worked for about 25K to 30K a year on average. That’s a lot of money for a foreigner, and Disney also got a tax cut from the IRS for each US worker they replaced here in the USA.

My husband is in the tech business and is keen on all this.

Obama is a master chess player of politics - trusting

[ In Reply To ..]
It seems to be that historically when President Obama wants something, he is on the airwaves and traveling the country explaining his vision and why we need the change, i.e. stimulus, health care, immigration. I do not see him doing this now. He very calmly and cooly gave speeches while knowing special ops were getting bid Laden. He is often silent and then we are surprised when everything turns out just as he wants. (When he let Romney shoot himself in the foot over Benghazi and when he let the Republicans appear the fools that they are when they let the Federal government go into default over the debt limit.

I do not see him pushing this trade agreement like he has pushed other policies. Could it be he does not really want it, but is working on a more international capacity that he is again playing close to vest? Apparently there is much good about the agreement in regards in "intellectual property protection" but I too am leery of any policy the Republicans are for because it usually comes out of middle America's pockets.

This kind of reminds me of how the media marveled at - at Bill Clinton and how he

[ In Reply To ..]
screwed the Republicans, not what he actually did, but the fact that he "screwed" them. That's why he called Slick Willie.

Meanwhile, the US will pay the price for his - shrewd "chess playing".

[ In Reply To ..]
if one is so inclined to believe that.

Similar Messages:

Apr 26, 2016
Now we get it...why Hillary Clinton is so lax and nasty - when Bernie is pushed out, President Obama swoops in and immediately starts campaigning for her. We were wondering why she is so, well, unenergetic, boring and blase...(when she is not yelling erratically and belittling Bernie). Now I would think Trump and Republicans can worry - do not think honestly Trump could beat President Obama, and that is who he will be running against. How does that show women to be strong and indep ...

Aug 19, 2012
nm ...

Jul 24, 2012
/ ...

Mar 10, 2013
I do wonder how many other states have started doing this. I would think this is ILLEGAL. The Missouri Department of Revenue, who issues concealed carry permits in Missouri, may have been caught transmitting private information on Concealed Carry Permit Holders to the Department of Homeland Security. Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder held a press conference to announce his involvement in an attempt to stop the Missouri Department of Revenue (DOR) from transmitting this private data to th ...

Oct 05, 2015
http://osnetdaily.com/2015/10/chinese-warplanes-join-air-strikes-in-syria-as-russia-gains-iraqi-air-base/ http://beforeitsnews.com/israel/2015/10/chinese-warplanes-to-join-russian-air-strikes-in-syria-russia-gains-iraqi-air-base-2454688.html https://endtimeheadlines.org/2015/10/ww3-building-chinese-warplanes-to-join-russian-air-strikes-in-syria-russia-gains-iraqi-air-base/ Here are some comments about UNITED STATES. http://www.topix.com/forum/world/germany/TSFAO3VJ40IKK5R9P http://w ...

May 21, 2010
because the one below sort got hijacked or should I say "invaded" by aliens from outer space. LOL! Anyway, I had never heard of this phenomenon, so when OP posted about I googled it of course and I just don't get it, I guess. What does it all mean really, that a lot of people all look at the clock at the exact same time a day or that once you become aware of 11, you see it everywhere? If it is a true phenomenon, then what is the point? Why have everyone become aware ...

Apr 27, 2013
Hello all - my daughter will be starting college in the fall and we are in the process of trying to find financial aid. Does anyone have info on how to get grants? Is there usually a family income max that would allow/disallow anyone from getting a grant? I know I will need to talk to the college's financial aid office but any info that can be passed along would be appreciated. We already completed the FAFSA and my daughter got a small loan through that, but she was not awarded any gran ...

May 07, 2013
I don't come on here very often but wanted to acknowledge that I saw your replies below. I have completed the FAFSA and my daughter was able to get a very small unsubsidized loan, but not even enough to cover one semester. I will try the suggestion of the forum. My daughter will be going to a university and the realization of how much money this is going to cost is overwhelming... and then to think that all that money will be spent and she may not even be able to get ...

Dec 04, 2013
CARSON: Getting to the top by starting at the bottom The lessons learned in youth jobs can pay off later By Ben S. Carson I vividly remember as a teenager obtaining my first job with a regular paycheck as a high school biology-laboratory assistant. It’s hard to describe how excited I was to be receiving a salary and contributing to the upkeep of my family’s household, but the biggest thrill was doing something important while at the same time acquiring many skills that would p ...

Jan 28, 2012
/ ...

Jan 24, 2012
; ...

Jan 23, 2012
. ...

Jan 22, 2012
. ...

Sep 16, 2016
When that old reprobate begins to sound off, you know Hillary's in trouble. ...

Mar 27, 2012
/ ...

Mar 23, 2010
I went to grocery store, stood in line and cashier asks how am I doing? I stated, "DISGUSTED WITH WHAT IS GOING ON WITH OUR GOVERNMENT." Remind you, this is a very democratic state and democratic city I live in. This good looking guy next to me standing in line holding gorgeous flowers stated, "You and me both." "I am a doctor and I am leaving along with others and we are considering Canada." I looked at him and stated, "I am a medical transcriptionist and my pay h ...

May 19, 2011
Hello! I'm having a sale in my Etsy shop to help pay for my DD's trip to 4H camp this June. She wrote an essay and won a partial scholarship for the cost, but we will still owe some money. The sale begins now and continues until June 17th. I'm offering 15% off any purchase in my shop and that will include any custom orders. Use code 4HCAMP to receive the discount. I will be taking a much-needed break from May 28-June 4, so orders placed that week wi ...

May 28, 2010
I'm posting 2 stories now with links under the stories. Now, can someone tell me why this is not illegal? The "WH enlisted the help of Clinton as a go-between" and "nothing improper took place"???? WH used Clinton to get Sestak out of Pa. race By PHILIP ELLIOTT (AP) – 56 minutes ago WASHINGTON — The White House used former President Bill Clinton to offer an unpaid advisory position to Rep. Joe Sestak in hopes of persuading him to drop his Pennsylvania Senate pri ...

Jul 14, 2012
/ ...

Sep 05, 2012
One of the Dem's talking heads just went to the podium at the convention to make an "important" immediate change to their platform. They are now inserting "God" back into the platform and recognizing the "capital of Israel", as well. Dems removed this from their platform, but reinserted it because they got flack for their bizarre comments and omissions and due to the ramifications and embarrassment Obama received (and we know how thin-skinned the King of Ken ...

May 23, 2013
Maybe a Death Row clay version could be made with Bush and Cheney as the heros of the Republic Party. ...

Jul 30, 2015
I was let go from IMedX for not flexing due to low work on day shift. Sorry, but I can't flex late night/overnight hours due to having a 4-year-old. She comes first. Transtech was understanding but this IMedX bunch is ruthless. I have a new IC part-time job now with plenty of work during the day, M-F w/rotating weekends, where I'm treated fairly and the pay is good. This is to pay bills and help with tuition. I just registered for my first class sinc ...

Jan 05, 2012
Previous thread getting too indented and confusing. The thread began with the question "If you are against Obama health care law, who should pay for the uninsured?" It boils down to either the individual is required to pay or the taxpayer will pay. We have lots of personal anecdotes and generalized "should" statements, grievances against the government and vague "individual basis" which means, I guess, do nothing. I came away with the opinion that conservatives are saying ...

Oct 14, 2010
Longer than I can remember, the daily news has been more and more depressing. Tragedy, civil unrest, your rights vs my rights vs their rights, violence, horrific scandals and scheming, disgusting political tactics, and so forth. Most of the TV shows even are just pushing the envelope too much. It is stressful. I didn't realize how stressful all of this was until I watched every single Chilean miner being rescued. That story did more for my belief in human spirit, co ...

Sep 04, 2012
Maybe time to get serious about working on our problems? I'm referring to hammers and nails, not knives and Molotovs. I'd start with complete election reform as the first step. ...

Oct 12, 2012
Martha is just going over the rules. ...

Jul 01, 2010
AP ran a story in our local paper. They are launching a special coverage program for uninsured Americans with medical problems this week. The catch: Preminiums will be a stretch for many even after government subsidies. You must have been uninsured for at least 6 months. Congress allocated $5B to the program but it could well run out in 2011. Premimiums are varied and estimated to cost a 50 yo in CA $575 a month wit ha $1500 deductible in CA. States with lower medical costs could be ...

Jun 25, 2012
/ ...

Feb 05, 2016
Pathetic old poops. Fifty cents a chance. ...

Nov 02, 2016
Wutta mutt. She also visited an early voting site today. I thought that was illegal, but hey...with the Clinton ANYTHING GOES. ...