Nebraska Sen. Nelson's Resume: Insurance Executive, Insurance Regulator and Gov. of Insurance Capital of World. Reformer?

In the AP story, "Neb. Democrat becomes target of ad campaign," By Margery Gibbs, Sen. Ben Nelson tries to defend himself against those who say he doesn’t support the public health care plan option being considered in the Senate right now.

We also know that if a public option isn’t included, than reform is history, that wold leave health care in its current disasterous unaffordable state.

So how does Sen. Nelson fight back against those who have called his tepid response to the the public plan a health care reform roadblock? You won’t believe his list of defensive comebacks.

Nelson’s spokesman, Jake Thompson, issued a written statement … saying "There's no doubt Senator Nelson understands the insurance industry's important role providing health care for millions of Americans. After all, he's been an insurance executive, an insurance industry regulator, a governor who created a children'shealth-insurance program, and today he represents Nebraska, arguably the insurance capital of the world."

That’s a defense? Looks like a no vote for the pulic health care option, doesn’t it?

NY TImes: "Sotomayor's Sharp Tongue Raises Issue of Temperament." Sexist Much?

Holy crap! My jaw dropped after reading the above headline put out by the Times.

And Antonin Scalia is a real pussy cat?

GOP Code Word: “Empathy? What’s that?”

Why does the media falls all over itself complementing the Republicans for their transparent use of word games? To add insult to injury, Democrats just don’t understand the game or have the time for it. They don’t understand its power of selling an idea. So what I’m about to do here will fade as quickly as clicking to another page.

First, let’s set up my liberal attempt at word gaming, which I gave away in the title of this piece. From the NY Times:

(President) Obama set forth his criteria for a (Supreme Court Justice) replacement by declaring that he viewed “that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient.” But now that conservatives have hijacked empathy and turned it into an epithet — “a code word for an activist judge,” as Senator Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, said recently on ABC.

The comeback: The next time you hear a Republican say the word empathy, respond that it's a code word for “What’s that?”

It’s not only kind of snarky, but it’s true. But for those in the GOP who have heard the word before and have looked up its meaning, they often times try to educate fellow conservatives with a quick definition.

Ed Gillespie, a former counselor to Mr. Bush, said it was no surprise that the White House dropped the word empathy. “Empathy is all about your feelings and your emotions.”

Thank you Ed, but what do “feelings” and “emotions” mean?

And who could forget Bush 1 and his support for the "empathy" laden Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court?

GOP Opposition to Universal Health Coverage Loses Another Dumb Argument.

Uh oh! Republicans have suddenly realized that they have been paying a “hidden tax,” and footing the bill for “lazy health care freeloaders,” for years without even knowing it. That’s right, “HIDDEN TAXES.”

Conservatives have argued for years that socialized medicine would force them to pay for someone else’s health care insurance. It is a patently silly idea, but that’s their story, and now I’m wondering if they’re sticking to it.

AP-The average family with health insurance shells out an extra $1,000 a year in premiums to pay for health care for the uninsured, a new report finds. And the average individual with private coverage pays an extra $370 a year because of the cost-shifting, which happens when someone without medical insurance gets care at an emergency room or elsewhere and then doesn't pay.

Families USA calls it a "hidden tax." Families USA contracted with the independent actuarial consulting firm Milliman Inc. to analyze federal data to produce the findings.

"As more people join the ranks of the uninsured, the hidden health tax is growing," said Ron Pollack, Families USA executive director. "That tax hits America's businesses and insured families hard in the pocketbook, and they therefore have a clear financial stake in expanding health care coverage."

The report found that, in 2008, uninsured people received $116 billion in health care. ... (Part of) that sum made its way into premiums charged by private insurance companies to businesses and individuals, the report said. Ronald A. Williams, chairman and chief executive of Aetna Inc. said, “You're paying for your own care as well as for the care of some of the uninsured in the community."

Hello…do you get it now?

Just Like Free Trade, Democrats Fall in Line with Politics of Fear

I thought this said all there needed to be said about the differences between the frightened Republicans and the "I better be scared too" Democrats. Sen. Kyle & Nelson should be ashamed.

Oompa Loompa Ear Worm and Eye Candy

After watching Charlie and the Chocolate Factory again with the kids, I couldn't get the included images here out of my mind. It's my creepy addiction.



Dance to Augustus Gloop and Violet Beauregarde.

Gingrich: "I think people should be afraid." The Grand Old Party of Fear.

I've written about it before because its true: Republicans and conservatives are living in fear, and everything that drives their ideology is based on fear. They want concealed carry laws because they fear their neighbors. They want to preemptively attack other countries because they fear for their lives. They fear other will have something they don't. They fear the opposition party and portray them as dangerous socialist who will destroy the greatest country in the world. They fear they are not as patriotic so they repeat over and over how they are THE real Americans. They fear illegal immigrants and gays. They fear their own government and unions. And right now, they fear not having "a leader," a steadfast, unshakable authority figure with the folksy Reagan delivery and Newt Gingrich's forced intellectualism.

Fear is the central driving force upon which everything they say and do is based. Take it from the best, Newt himself. Thank you Sen. Dick Durbin for finally speaking the truth to fear.

Damn the Research… Simple Right Wing Truths.

In my side bar feature “Blogs I’ve Been too…” you’ll find “dissecting leftism.” It’s an unintentionally humorous psychoanalysis of how we liberals think.

A recent British study found that fathers who have daughters are more liberals. Conversely, mothers who have sons lean more conservative. But like any important study, right wing opinions were not included as applicable facts. Thus the results are meaningless at best or just plain wrong. I intentionally posted the results of the study after the more important “truthy” conservative conclusions by our friends at dissecting leftism. Let’s face it, they just know these things, like…

The underlying assumption of the British article “Does having daughters makes fathers more likely to agree with Left-wing views?” is faulty.

Although it is often asserted, Leftism is NOT in fact "feminine". Women can be very practical and such women are by that fact less likely to succumb to Leftist fantasies.

Married people with children lean heavily towards conservative parties. So having ANY children, male or female, moves you to the Right. It is young unattached females who lean Left.

Now on to the study, devoid of the above “nonsensical facts:”

Research has found that the more girls a man has, the more likely he is to be Left-wing. Daughters have such a profound effect on their fathers that they can switch their political viewpoint, a study suggests.

Compared to men, women are more likely to favour Labour or Liberal policies such as higher taxes to fund provisions like the NHS. They also tend to earn less than men so won’t be as hard-hit by higher taxation. As a man fathers more daughters, he will gradually be won round by their more Left-wing viewpoints.

The researchers wrote: ‘This paper provides evidence that daughters make people more Left-wing, while having sons, by contrast, makes them more Right-wing. As men acquire female children, those men gradually shift their political stance and become more sympathetic to the “female” desire for a larger amount for the public good. ‘They become more Left-wing. Similarly a mother with sons becomes sympathetic to the “male” case for lower taxes and a smaller supply of public goods”.

They found that among parents of with between two to four children who voted for Labour or the Lib Dems, the average number of daughters was higher than average number of sons. The study is backed up by recent findings in America that showed US congressmen were more likely to support gender equality policies if they had daughters. The authors concluded that parents realise the potential struggles their daughters will face and begin to sympathise with them.

Brad Pitt told a US TV show: ‘Yes, I have got family on the mind. Jen and I have been working something out. Little girls, they just crush me - they break my heart.’ Sylvester Stalone, star of the Rocky films, admitted he altered his career path and chose more emotive roles after the birth of his daughter Sophia in 1996. He said: ‘The birth of my daughter was a subtle indication of the way I should go. I want to get back to more emotional, character-driven films.’

Note: I wish it weren’t so, but dissecting leftism does not supply story links.

Loans that fit a Families Income are Now the Third Wave of Foreclosures. Republicans Scramble to Blame Someone?

Where are the Republicans now, as solid home owners lose their jobs and slip into foreclosure?

How will they blame those irresponsible low income buyers for the current wave of families losing their homes to job losses and a dry employment market? Who the hell are they going to vilify now?

New York Times: As job losses rise, growing numbers of American homeowners with once solid credit are falling behind on their mortgages, amplifying a wave of foreclosures. In the latest phase of the nation’s real estate disaster, the locus of trouble has shifted from subprime loans — those extended to home buyers with troubled credit — to the far more numerous prime loans issued to those with decent financial histories. “We’re about to have a big problem,” said Morris A. Davis, a real estate expert at the University of Wisconsin.

Economists refer to the current surge of foreclosures as the third wave, distinct from the initial spike when speculators gave up property because of plunging real estate prices, and the secondary shock, when borrowers’ introductory interest rates expired and were reset higher. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com said, “That loss of jobs and loss of overtime hours and being forced from a full-time to part-time job is resulting in defaults. They’re coast to coast.”

Those sliding into foreclosure today are more likely to be modest borrowers whose loans fit their income than the consumers of exotically lenient mortgages that formerly typified the crisis. Economy.com expects that 60 percent of the mortgage defaults this year will be set off primarily by unemployment, up from 29 percent last year.

We were warned of a wage “race to the bottom. “ But we loved the cheap products from China, We loved the cheap outsourced services from India.

I’m part of this new wave. I lost my job due to a recent business closing. Anticipating the worst, I recently managed to refinance my 15 year mortgage to a 30 year at 4.875 percent. That’s a change from $1003 to $582 a month payment. The rent I receive from my upper flat will help pay almost all of that monthly payment. It will slow the losses from paying our other bills. But obviously, we’re not out of the woods yet. Renewing our health care insurance is out of the question now.

Oddly, I mentioned my plight in a brief “lost my income” post on a Facebook running conversation, and didn’t get a response. My close friends were caught in “fun” tests and radio station promotions. Some even dreaded the thought of yard work.

Crazy Socialist Germans have Created 250,000 New "Green Jobs." Don't You Hate Europe?

Republicans are pretty angry these days. They're angry about everything. They're angry about mandating higher fuel economy for the cars we drive even though it will save them money at the pump and create a healthier auto industry. They're worried cars will cost and extra $600 more because of the mandate, forgetting the free market might negate the added charge. Paying $4 a gallon is a fading memory. They're against unsightly wind farms but rabid supporters of oil wells and refineries dotting our landscape. Most egregious is their constant criticism of our friend and trading partner Europe.

Republicans will have none of the more innovative ideas and government successes of "socialist" Europe. U.S. exceptionalism is the answer to all our problems. It is also the anchor around our necks. Take green jobs for instance. To conservatives, the jobs created by a green economy is just a liberal wet dream.

Or is it?

How Germany Created Jobs by Going Green

President Obama says investing in a “green economy” can create 5 million jobs in the next 10 years. How? The answer may lie in Germany. The country that is home to Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen is on its way to making its green sector larger than its auto industry by 2020, according to a recent study.

Germany has developed 250,000 new jobs in renewable energy, including nearly 50,000 wind-power jobs in the last five years alone.

The government worked to promote a green culture through all levels of society. ”We started with simpler parts, like automating systems in office buildings to use less power,” says Elmar Bollin, a director of research in Baden-Württemberg. Financial incentives were given to people who retrofitted their homes with renewable sources.

The green-jobs creation program costs the average German family $38 per year on its utility bill.

The country leads Europe in developing and exporting green technology, generating $240 billion in annual revenue. And the German government continues to lead by example: Its parliament building is set to run solely on green energy. — Susan Fine, Parade Magazine

No way. Germans must be crazy to pay an extra $38 a year, just to create jobs and become a world leader in exported green technology.

And anyway, who wants to be like Europe?

Media, Democrats Now Piling on Barack Obama with "Straw men."

After a little over four months in office, President Barack Obama has been abandoned by the Democratic Party on Gitmo and health care, two major issues that required guts and conviction. We are now treated to a public policy that continues to serve the power elite and phony wedge campaigns by the GOP. I know, it sounds clichéd, but what else can you say about the way things are turning out. For instance, in the NY Times:

Democrats often complained about President George W. Bush’s frequent use of a rhetorical device as old as rhetoric itself: creating the illusion of refuting an opponent’s argument by mischaracterizing it and then knocking down that mischaracterization … guess who is knocking down straw men left and right? To listen to President Obama, a veritable army of naysayers has invaded Washington, urging him to sit on his hands at the White House and do nothing to address any of the economic or national security problems facing the country.

“There are those who say these plans are too ambitious, that we should be trying to do less, not more,” Mr. Obama told a town-hall-style meeting in Costa Mesa, Calif., on March 18. “Well, I say our challenges are too large to ignore.” Mr. Obama did not specify who, exactly, was saying America should ignore its challenges.

Good god! I thought even a simpleton would be able to grasp the idea that Republicans have for the last eight years ignored everything that has now crumbled around us in this recession. “The party of NO.” THE NAYSAYERS. The same Republicans who are complaining the president is taking on too many issues. Am I hallucinating or are the writers of this Times piece completely out to lunch? Then another article had this bogus topic:

If there was one thing both presidential candidates agreed on last fall, it was the need to close the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Now the consensus from the campaign trail has dissolved, leaving Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike at odds with the White House. Talk radio and cable news hosts warned viewers that dangerous terrorists might end up in a neighborhood jail, Senate Democrats, who last week broke with their president to join a 90-to-6 vote against funds to close Guantánamo, faulted the White House for failing to provide political cover by reassuring the public that he had a clear plan the for the prisoners.

It appears the Democrats left Obama dangling with one of the parties biggest campaign cries, close Gitmo. Brilliant. Now we can debate this ridiculous emotional wedge issue for months while health care reform slips to the back burner. Didn’t we just have eight years of kicking the can down the road with psycho babble delay tactics.

What the hell are the Democrats doing? The blue dog Democrats are just as big an obstacle to the liberal agenda as the GOP.

RIght Wing Blog-Your Entry Through the Looking Glass. It's the "I Know You are But What Am I" Argument.

A gift of laughter, and a lot of projection, from the right wing.

I Want To Be A Liberal

By Nancy Morgan from dissectleft.blogspot.com

I want to be a liberal, because then everyone will like me. My family will start talking to me again, and chances are, my ex-husband will want to renew the marriage vows he broke when I started spouting conservative opinions.

I'd like to be a liberal because its ever so much easier to allow others to form my opinions for me instead of researching an issue myself. That always gets me in trouble, especially when the facts I discover diverge from the latest politically correct consensus.

I'd like to be a liberal because then I'd be rewarded for all my shortcomings and nothing would ever be my fault. I'd be an important cog in the wheel of social justice, and a cherished warrior in the current fight for equality.

If I were a liberal, I would be free to have sex whenever and with whomever I want - and be considered 'empowered' to boot. I could abort any inconvenience with nary a thought because my rights to my body trump the life I would have suctioned out of me.

I'd like to be a liberal because any guilt I would normally feel for what used to be considered deviant, irresponsible behavior may be assuaged by merely advocating the expenditure of other people's money on whatever the cause du jour is. Very cool. Especially since my stock portfolio has been pretty much decimated.

I want to be a liberal because they care so much. They have a lock on all the fashionable emotions, like tolerance, diversity, equality and patriotism. And as long as my intentions are pure and I 'care', I won't have to accept responsibility for any negative consequences that my actions might cause.

I'd like to be a liberal because everyone knows that conservatives are racist, homophobic, stupid and, well, beneath contempt. Conservatives are motivated by gasp, profit, instead of being nice. Enough said.

I'd like to be a liberal because I'd be able to redefine reality to my own specifications. I could turn failure into success, murder into choice, lies into 'misstatements', and theft into investment. I would automatically be considered wise, instead of opinionated. Best of all, I could make up the rules as I go along, change them in midstream and then demonize anyone who doesn't agree with me.

I want to be a liberal because everyone knows they hold the moral high ground. They don't lie, cheat or steal. Oh, and they don't condone torture. The media says so, so it must be true.

Before I am able to join this community of man, however, there are a few ground rules:

I have to acknowledge that government is the best and only solution for any problems America has. Despite the fact that pretty much every government solution to date has been a disaster.

I must agree that America is bad and white Christian males are responsible for all that is wrong with the world. Further, I must agree that terrorists and third world dictators are either freedom fighters or misunderstood men of good will. Oh, and I must acknowledge that dialogue is better than war. Even though decades of dialogue haven't worked, things are different, now that Obama is president. I must have faith. After all, the times, they are a changin'.

I'd, of course, be expected to not only condone, but happily embrace gay marriage and the long list of newly minted sexual behaviors, and swear to never mention the adverse health risks or the proven harm they do to traditional families.

I'd also have to quit judging people (except for conservatives). After all, liberals will allow me to do whatever I want, free from moral censure, and its only fair I do the same for them.

I'd have to immediately quit smoking, in public at least. I'd be required to agree that global warming is real and man is the cause. Even though the earth has cooled in the last decade, everyone knows its still getting warmer. I'd also have to renounce Christianity in favor of Mother Earth and believe that the Constitution is a 'living instrument'.

I'd have to agree that victimhood trumps merit and that liberals know best. Always. And lastly, I'd have to support the notion that racism is still rampant, even if it is the silent 'institutional' type.

In return, I'll be accepted, popular, and invited to the best parties. I'll be eligible for the right to housing, health care, a living wage (even if I don't work) and happiness. And as long as I remain a liberal, no-one is allowed to insult me. How cool is that?

I'll finally get my columns published in my own hometown paper and will have a good chance of getting face time on MSNBC. Best of all, I'll be able to atone for my sins by merely paying Algore for a few carbon credits. Then, I will live happily ever after. Isn't that worth sacrificing such ethereal and frivolous notions like freedom, individualism and principles?

The Bottom Line Truth About the GOP: “…the private sector is broken, and Republicans won’t even acknowledge that fact.”

Steve Rundio, the Perspective Page editor of Tomah Journal, wrote a wonderful piece titled “Republicans could use help from private sector.”

The core selling point of a conservative political party is that the private sector is inherently more efficient, dynamic and ethical than the public sector. That’s a hard sell these days.

It was the private sector, not the government, that got the bright idea to insure bundled mortgages.

It’s a private-sector bureaucrat, not a government bureaucrat, who’s more likely to stand between a patient and the health care he or she needs.

It’s the private sector, not the government, that can change your credit card interest rate on a whim.It’s the private sector, not the government, that outsources call centers to India.

It’s a private-sector executive, not a government bureaucrat, who can leverage an eight-figure golden parachute for running a failed enterprise.

It’s a private-sector executive, not a government bureaucrat, who’s more likely to spend $1.2 million renovating an office.

It’s not a concession for Republicans to embrace the notion of civic virtue and acknowledge areas where the free market is producing outcomes most Americans reject (income distribution, for example). Conservative columnist David Brooks, however, implies Republicans don’t get it:“The Republicans talk more about the market than about society, more about income than quality of life. They celebrate capitalism, which is a means, and are inarticulate about the good life, which is the end.”

The problem is that much of the private sector is broken, and Republicans won’t even acknowledge that fact, much less acknowledge any of its consequences. Perhaps that’s appropriate. The revival of the Republican Party is, at its very core, a private-sector enterprise.

Thanks again to rocknetroots.blogspot.com for finding this nugget.

State Republicans Demand Higher Unemployment Numbers.

Thanks to rocknetroots.blogspot.com for this seemly insignificant budgetary story. Looking at it a little closer, we can get a clearer picture of the scorched earth policies of our state Republican lawmakers. These conservative carnival barkers never met a family they didn’t think could handle a total loss of life sustaining income, especially during a recession they created.

AP-Up to 1,400 state employees could be laid off under a new budget-balancing plan announced Thursday that cuts funding for state agencies, schools and local governments.

With record high unemployment already, shrinking family budgets and non-existent consumer spending, adding huge numbers of public employees to the rolls would seem to make matters worse. But state Republicans are claiming they would have gotten rid of even more state employees during the last budget negotiation stalemate. They wanted to slash $3 billion and cut thousands of public jobs. Of course, that crazy scheme would have been completely unnecessary had they not blocked over $3 billion dollars worth of increased revenue streams from those not paying their fair share of taxes. Cutting jobs in a recession would seem counter productive, but not to Republicans.

The cuts to government spending are commendable, but Doyle's plan will raise taxes, said Rep. Robin Vos, R-Racine, a member of the budget committee. He noted Doyle's endorsement of a 75-cent fee to be paid by cell phone users that will offset cuts in aid to local governments.

"He took the easy route out," Vos said, saying government should be cut more.

Conveniently, Vos like every other Republican, has never had the courage to show the public where they would cut government. But you might recall, even when the local postal officials centralized their distribution centers to rein in a $2 billion federal shortfall, the states Congressional Republicans Ryan and Sensenbrenner were successful getting the spending cuts repealed because of... are you ready...later delivery times.

Banana Display, a Guy in a Gorilla Suit and a Confused Public!

602wtmj.com out did the Onion with this story of a gorilla suited banana display thief. You'll love the video, you delight in the written piece below.


.

Fond du Lac police are scratching their heads. A bandit dressed a gorilla ran into two Kwik Trip stores grabbed the foam banana display and split!

And no one seems to know why.

But this banana thief slipped up. The attempted crime was caught on one store's surveillance video. Police released the grainy images in the hopes that someone might recognize the ape and turn him in.

Police received several calls last night from people who claim to have seen the "ape" hanging around, but the thief still on the loose.

They say it could be anything from a senior prank to someone making a video for the internet. Still, until the banana bandit is corralled, people in Fond du Lac will remain confused.

Republicans Defined: The Undeniable “Fear” Factor.

It's all about FEAR.

I have been trying to figure out for a long time why conservatives thinking is confusing and convoluted. I kept hearing in my head, over an over, the now famous Robot line from Lost In Space "That does not compute." It's not like I don't know any right wingers.

My long time best friend in Milwaukee is a born again, gun toting (against state law) conservative. I’ve tried to understand why certain issues bother him enough to call me and complain. He worries that lazy people and the poor want to take his money. He defends the wealthy against repressive taxation that he thinks discourages the rich from trying to become even richer. He also wonders why Democrats want to cavort with terrorists. Why?

Fear.

The most recent example of twisted fearful logic revolves around the debate highlighting the dangers of bringing Gitmo detainees to the U.S. for trial and incarceration. Many Americans were left scratching their heads trying to figure out how anyone could make the claims that Gitmo detainees would be allowed to go free, live in our local communities, and draw taxpayer supported welfare checks to help them fit in.

The reaction in the video below from conservative radio talk host Heidi Harris finally provided the answer.

Every conservative characteristic I’ve described so far is based on “FEAR.” The fear that someone is getting something for nothing. The fear that terrorists will strike again. The fear that being unarmed will expose us to all the hidden dangers that lurk around us. The fear that government (we the people?), and not monopolistic corporate power, will take our freedoms away. The very idea of housing detainees and exposing them to our justice system "does not compute" for Harris or Sen. Thune. Detainees are evil first and never innocent. These horrified Americans are living in spine-tingling FEAR!

Torture is another clarifying example. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, in a recent number of interviews, drove the point home when he bottomed lined Dick Cheney’s response to 9/11: “It’s clear that he’s frightened,” and “Cheney is a man who frightens easily.” (search this blog for “Wilkerson”). In fact, it was Wilkerson who brought about my epiphany.

Finally, Eric L. Lewis, an attorney representing Guantanamo and Afghan detainees, wrote this for the Huffington Post:

Former Vice President Cheney has masterfully shifted the debate about torture from the realm of law and ethics to that of pure efficacy. Cheney wants to take what is a stark legal and moral issue and turn it into yet another Washington "some argue this; some argue that" controversy. It is a clever bureaucratic maneuver ... The absolute prohibition on torture is not based on a consensus that it never works. Rather, it is based on the sad realization that the impulse to torture is ever-present; that human beings who are frightened or zealous or full of rage -- as human beings invariably are -- will feel a powerful need to torture and a powerful justification for acting on that need.

We do not balance the costs and benefits to see if torture works because there will always be some argument that can be made that it works or it might work or people believed at the time that it would. By refocusing on whether torture worked, Vice President Cheney wants to deflect attention from the fact that civilized legal systems make torture criminal precisely because we are ever tempted that it might work.

Again, “human beings who are frightened or zealous or full of rage -- as human beings invariably are…” is a reaction common among conservatives. This is a visceral gut feeling that bypasses all common sense or discussion. A shield of self defense that makes them who they are; Republicans.

Wilkerson on Cheney: "It's clear that he's frightened...the Church of Cheney"

Here are a few very short clips of Dick "crazy" Cheney's twisted view of reality. What follows is this quick hit from Sen. Tom Harkin: "..almost a pathetic figure, I mean this person must live in fear every day...what a terrible way to spend your life." But don't stop there.

You really have to listen to Col. Lawrence Wilkerson's analysis of Dick Cheney. In fact, search this blog for everything "Wilkerson" and you will be entertained by his smash mouth description of our former vice president and current psychopath, Darth Cheney. Remember, not only is Wilkerson a Republican, but he was also Colin Powell's chief of staff. He knows this guy.

In the Most Outragous Display of Arrogance, Cheney's Angry Authoritarian Speech Historically Appalling

I've never seen anything like Dick Cheney's bitch session with fellow darksiders on the merits of torture and a shredded Constitution.

Unprofessional and petty, Cheney lies and convolutes reality into a twisted and frightening world of pending doom. As the ultimate authoritarian, refusing to give up power to anyone, Cheney has decided to stay in the lime light until he has convinced everyone there is only one way to do things; his way.

I've edited this to include my favorite despotic moments along with comments from Lawrence O'Donnell and Chris Matthews.

Are we not Consumers? Credit Card Companies Need Us Too.

It’s time to fight back against the credit card bank threats of higher interest rates and fees for good customers along with their riskier accounts. Those riskier accounts rake in billions for the card companies, and they like it. But we aren’t helpless.

Fight back with PayPal. I have been a customer of PayPal for years, a skeptical customer, who didn’t like giving any control of my credit card and checking account information to one company. But they have proven themselves over the years to be consumer friendly and vigilant in their fight against fraud. But enough of my sales pitch. Let’s get back to fighting the credit card banks attempting to bully their prized good customers.

Besides being bad for business, it’s hard to imagine any company threatening to penalize their customers with higher fees and fines. That’s what they have done in their typically corporate arrogant fashion. But we have alternatives.

First, use PayPal to pay for online purchases. Trust me on this.

Pay all purchases by directly withdrawing money from your checking account. Some may feel uncomfortable doing this, but I have done this before with great success and security. I highly recommend this method of payment for now, and for as long as the credit card banks try to reach into our pockets one more time. Remember the bailouts? Simply send the message we don’t need ‘em.

The following article from the NY Times explains the elitist banks position on their consumer “friendly” service. Power mad might be one way of describing their mindset.

Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit. Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups.

Edward Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation’s biggest banks (said), “Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.”

Thank you very much. Question: you want OUR business?

…Major banks including American Express, Citigroup, Bank of America and a long
list of others have already begun to raise interest rates, and some have set their sights on consumers who pay their bills on time. The legislation does not cap interest rates, so banks can continue to lift them, albeit at a slower pace and with greater disclosure. People who routinely pay off their credit card balances have been enjoying the equivalent of a free ride, he said.

...“Despite all the terrible things that have been said, you’re making out like a bandit,” he said. “That’s a third of credit card customers, 50 million people who have gotten a great deal.” …the amount of money generated by penalty fees like late charges and exceeding credit limits had increased by about $1 billion annually in recent years, and should top $20 billion this year. Regulations passed by the Federal Reserve in December to curb unexpected interest charges would cost issuers about $12 billion a year in lost fees and income, according to industry calculations.

Austan Goolsbee, an economic adviser to President Obama, said that while the credit card industry had the right to make a reasonable profit as long as its contracts were in plain language and rule-breakers were held accountable, its current practices were akin to “a series of carjackings.” “The card industry is giving the argument that if you didn’t want to be carjacked, why weren’t you locking your doors or taking a different road?” Mr. Goolsbee
said.

Republicans Offer Universal Health Care Endorsed by the Insurance Industry. What a Plan.

The Republicans revealed today their own plan for universal health care. Basically, if you can afford health care now you will be able to get it, and if you can't, you'll be sitting on a nice tax credit that will only pay for a third to half of your yearly premium. Not to mention a sizable out of pocket deductible. Oh, and you'll still have to deal with trying to get coverage from an insurance company, the life blood of good health. Notice the term, universal "access," which means it's there for everyone, if you can afford it. You have to ask: Are they kidding?

Insurance Journal: U.S. Senator Tom Coburn along with U.S. Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin introduced legislation, The Patients' Choice Act of 2009, that shares the goal of the opposite party: the promotion of universal access to quality, affordable health care.

Here's my analysis of the plan, with my comments first:

Do you back a plan endorsed by the insurance industries?: The public option has been opposed by health insurers, agents and conservative groups.

Shop till you literally drop option: Create state health insurance exchanges to allow Americans to compare different private market health insurance policies

Keep the insurance companies in the loop: Create a non-profit, independent board to risk adjust among participating insurance companies.

Spend tons of taxpayer money on the uninsurable (how can somebody be “uninsurable” if we have universal access?):Gives states the ability to band together in regional pooling arrangements, as well as risk pools, reinsurance markets, or risk adjustment mechanisms to cover those deemed uninsurable.

Small tax Credits that does nothing to contain costs or make care more affordable when premiums are $10,000 to $15,000 a year on average: Give every American a advanceable and refundable tax credit of $2,300 per individual or $5,700 per family.

I have a health savings account that goes up$1200 a year with a $10,000 deductible. You have to have the money first to pay for an (HAS) and lots of money to maintain it: It would also seek to improve the operation of Health Savings Accounts by allowing health insurance premiums to be paid with HSAs without a tax penalty and raising the amount of money HSA owners may annually contribute to their account.

Health care insurance companies are private for profit businesses (even the nonprofit) that have been cherry picking customers and pricing people out of coverage for years, creating the current crisis. Leave it to a Republican to somehow blame the government instead of these blood sucking insurance company middlemen.

Senator Tom Coburn said, "As a practicing physician, I have seen first-hand how giving government more control over health care has failed to make health care more affordable and accessible. The American people deserve health care reform that will work, not another round of so-called reform that repeats the same failed policies of the past.”

Rep. Paul Ryan said, "The Patients' Choice Act represents a clear alternative to those who seek to empower Washington at the expense of the individual…”

…and the highly profitable insurance industry, right Paul? I wonder how the Wall Street Journal will spin it:

Who will control the system? Doctors and patients, or politicians and regulators? That's the crux of this year's health-care debate. The Republican proposal makes the choice clear.

I’m sorry, but shouldn’t that have read “Doctors, INSURANCE COMPANIES and patients?” Its strange how magically invisible the insurance companies are in the minds of conservatives. Odd too when you take into consideration that 20 to 35 cents out of every dollars goes to “administrative costs.” I thought they hate bloated bureaucracies, even private ones.

Low-income Americans would get a to help them purchase insurance and pay out-of-pocket costs. They would have an incentive to spend wisely since up to one-fourth of any unspent money in the accounts could be rolled over to the next year. The combination of the refundable tax credit and a supplemental debit card of up to $5,000 gives lower-income Americans a way out of the Medicaid ghetto so they can have the dignity of private insurance.

That’s the line, isn’t it? “…THE DIGNITY OF PRIVATE INSURANCE.”

Now don’t you just hate these bastards?