Post by: kaydeejaded on April 15, 2004, 12:08:00 AM
Why Bush Thought He Could Do the Job
George Bush isn't as stupid as I think he is. He is smart enough to know he's not smart enough to be president. So, Why did he think he could be President?
Source: Linda Lindauer, 2004-04-13
Candidate: Republican Party
The answer has to start with Ronald Reagan.
George W wasn't part of the Reagan Administration, but he was close - close enough to see what was going on.
Ronald Reagan is currently suffering from Alsheimer's Disease. The Dirty Little Secret is, Ronald Reagan was suffering from this disabling disease while he was serving as president. Yet that fact was kept from the public.
George W's father was among those that kept that secret.
Imagine the joking around the Bush family dinner table at Reagan's expense. They probably called him "The Old Man" and made really ugly remarks about his "not playing with a full deck" or "don't let him wander too far from Nancy."
Of course, these kinds of ugly, mean-spirited jokes were really at the expense of the American People who were leaderless while their government was looted in the most indicted administration in the nation's history. With no one at the helm, the Reagan Administration wandered aimlessly through the later half of the 20t
h Century.
It wasn't until George HW Bush took over the office of President that all of the thieving of the Reagan Administration came home to the American People. The Savings and Loan Scandals, the Bush Pardons of the indicted Reagan Administrators, that awful recession and the huge National Debt all happened during the first Bush Administration. And he was roundly rejected.
Bill Clinton, that rascal, has a great intellect. He made being President look easy. He turned the country around in every way and is beloved to this day by the vast Middle Class. During the Clinton years, the rich got richer and even the poor got richer. The Bush people hated him. But who could they run against him?
It fell to George W. You can imagine how he whined that he didn't want to run. But his Mom and Dad told him they'd surround him with their old friends and everything would be alright.
Well, its not alright, is it. He's made a real mess of things and he doesn't have a clue how to fix it. If
it weren't that so many people have died because of his awful arrogance, I'd feel sorry for him. But he is a personal and national failure and he should be ashamed of himself and resign.
Go home, Mr. President. Just go home.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
--Edmund Burke
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2004, 12:17:00 AM
Kaydee - you don't get it. There are no saints in politics. Demonizing Bush, Clinton, Allbright, Gore, the whole damn gang is not going to make this world a better or more safe place to live.
Trust me, I know, having been a former campaign worker for Bobby Kennedy. Politics is a game. The country needs to be run like a business if any of us are going to keep the majority of the money we work so hard to earn in our pocket and not Uncle Sam's. Sounds pretty lame I know, but that's pretty much the bottom line.
Is Kerry a good businessman? He certainly has a lot of money to manage for a guy whose only job has been in politics.
:rofl:
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 15, 2004, 12:24:00 AM
Kerry:
Bachelor's degree, Yale University, 1966; law degree, Boston College, 1976
Offices Held: Massachusetts lieutenant governor, 1982-84; U.S. senator, elected 1984
Throughout his career, John Kerry has been a top leader on the environment, fighting to clean up toxic waste sites, to keep our air and water clean, and to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other pristine wilderness areas. In addition to supporting important environmental initiatives, John Kerry has turned a spotlight on the Bush Administration?s rollbacks of our hard-won environmental gains and their outdated, old-economy notions that our environment must be sacrificed in the name of short-term profit.
Don't sweat the- Petty Things
Don't pet the- Sweaty Things
Water what you want to grow.
--Curiosity
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 15, 2004, 12:25:00 AM
When Kerry returned home a highly decorated soldier, he joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, becoming a prominent antiwar spokesperson. He challenged the Nixon administration and as Kerry's public popularity soared, the FBI considered him a subversive. Brinkley reveals how White House aides tried to discredit Kerry. Refusing to be intimidated, Kerry ran for public office, eventually becoming a U.S. senator. He never forgot his fallen comrades. Working with Senator John McCain, he returned to Vietnam numerous times looking for MIAs and POWs, becoming the leading proponent of "normalization" of relations with Vietnam. When President Clinton officially recognized Vietnam in 1995, Kerry's three-decade-long tour of duty had at long last finally ended.
If it is believed that... elementary schools will be better managed by the governor and council, the commissioners of the literary fund or any other general authority of the government than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience.
Thomas Jefferson
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 15, 2004, 12:28:00 AM
As the 2000 Presidential campaign moved along, angry veterans in Alabama claimed that George W Bush never performed any military service in that state, as stated on his campaign website. They offered a reward of $1000 (which rose to $3,500) to anyone who could prove that he had. No one came forth with any proof.
...and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
(Jury nullification. It's not just a good idea, it's the law!)
Declaration of Rights, PA Constitution
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 15, 2004, 12:32:00 AM
"The question is, where were you, Governor Bush?" said Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii and a World War II veteran.
"What would you do as commander-in-chief if someone in the National Guard did the same thing?" Inouye asked during a telephone address to supporters of Vice President Al Gore in Nashville yesterday.
Inouye joined several colleagues, Senators Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska, and Max Cleland, Democrat of Georgia, in raising harsh questions about Bush's role during the Vietnam War.
The remarks were in response to a Globe article this week showing that Bush stopped flying after 22 months within his unit of the Texas Air National Guard. Further, the article reported, Bush failed to show up for required Guard drills during a six-month stay in Alabama, and he was lax even after returning to Houston.
"At the least, I would have been court-martialed. At the least, I would have been placed in prison," Inouye said.
Bush "made a commitment to the Texas Air National Guard, and God bless him for doing so," said Kerrey. But "if you're going to make a commitment to join the Guard, especially at that time, you've got to keep that commitment," Kerrey added.
Bush has refused to be interviewed by the Globe on the topic of his military service.
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs.
-- E. Grebenik
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 15, 2004, 12:33:00 AM
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
Andrew Tannenbaum
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2004, 02:17:00 AM
April 14, 2004
Last week, 9/11 commissioner John Lehman revealed that "it was the policy (before 9/11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory." Hmmm ... Is 19 more than two? Why, yes, I believe it is. So if two Jordanian cab drivers are searched before boarding a flight out of Newark, Osama bin Laden could then board that plane without being questioned. I'm no security expert, but I'm pretty sure this gives terrorists an opening for an attack.
In a sane world, Lehman's statement would have made headlines across the country the next day. But not one newspaper, magazine or TV show has mentioned that it is official government policy to prohibit searching more than two Arabs per flight.
Meanwhile, another 9/11 commissioner, the greasy Richard Ben-Veniste, claimed to be outraged that the CIA did not immediately give intelligence on 9/11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar to the FBI. As we now know -- or rather, I alone know because I'm the only person in America watching the 9/11 hearings -- Ben-Veniste should have asked his fellow commissioner Jamie Gorelick about that.
In his testimony this week, John Ashcroft explained that the FBI wasn't even told Almihdhar and Alhazmi were in the country until weeks before the 9/11 attack -- because of Justice Department guidelines put into place in 1995. The FBI wasn't allowed to put al-Qaida specialists on the hunt for Almihdhar and Alhazmi because of Justice Department guidelines put into place in 1995. Indeed, the FBI couldn't get a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer -- because of Justice Department guidelines put into place in 1995.
The famed 1995 guidelines were set forth in a classified memorandum written by the then-deputy attorney general titled "Instructions for Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations," which imposed a "draconian" wall between counterintelligence and criminal investigations.
What Ashcroft said next was breathtaking. Prohibited from mounting a serious search for Almihdhar and Alhazmi, an irritated FBI investigator wrote to FBI headquarters, warning that someone would die because of these policies -- "since the biggest threat to us, OBL (Osama bin Laden), is getting the most protection."
FBI headquarters responded: "We're all frustrated with this issue. These are the rules. NSLU (National Security Law Unit) does not make them up. But somebody did make these rules. Somebody built this wall."
The person who built that wall described in the infamous 1995 memo, Ashcroft said, "is a member of the commission." If this were an episode of "Matlock," the camera would slowly pan away from Ashcroft's face at this point and then quickly jump to an extreme close-up of Jamie Gorelick's horrified expression. Armed marshals would then escort the kicking, screaming Gorelick away in leg irons as the closing credits rolled. Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in 1995.
The 9/11 commission has finally uncovered the proverbial "smoking gun"! But it was fired by one of the 9/11 commissioners. Maybe between happy reminiscences about the good old days of Ruby Ridge, Waco and the Elian Gonzales raid, Ben-Veniste could ask Gorelick about those guidelines. Democrats think it's a conflict of interest for Justice Scalia to have his name in the same phonebook as Dick Cheney. But there is no conflict of interest having Gorelick sit on a commission that should be investigating her.
Bill O'Reilly's entire summary of Ashcroft's testimony was to accuse Ashcroft of throwing sheets over naked statues rather than fighting terrorism. No mention of the damning Gorelick memo. No one knows about the FAA's No-Searching-Arabs counterterrorism policy. Predictions that conservatives have finally broken through the wall of sound coming from the mainstream media may have been premature.
When Democrats make an accusation against Republicans, newspaper headlines repeat the accusation as a fact: "U.S. Law Chief 'Failed to Heed Terror Warnings,'" "Bush Was Told of Qaida Steps Pre-9/ 11; Secret Memo Released," "Bush White House Said to Have Failed to Make al-Qaida an Early Priority."
But when Republicans make accusations against Democrats -- even accusations backed up by the hard fact of a declassified Jamie Gorelick memo -- the headlines note only that Republicans are making accusations: "Ashcroft Lays Blame at Clinton's Feet," "Ashcroft: Blame Bubba for 9/11," "Ashcroft Faults Clinton in 9/11 Failures."
It's amazing how consistent it is. A classic of the genre was the Chicago Tribune headline, which managed to use both constructs in a single headline: "Ashcroft Ignored Terrorism, Panel Told; Attorney General Denies Charges, Blames Clinton." Why not: "Reno Ignored Terrorism, Panel Told; Former Deputy Attorney General Denies Charges, Blames Bush"?
Democrats actively created policies that were designed to hamstring terrorism investigations. The only rap against the Bush administration is that it failed to unravel the entire 9/11 terrorism plot based on a memo titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."
I have news for liberals: Bin Laden is still determined to attack inside the United States! Could they please tell us when and where the next attack will be? Because unless we know that, it's going to be difficult to stop it if we can't search Arabs.
anncoulter.com
:rofl:
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2004, 02:26:00 AM
:scared:
Post by: Deborah on April 15, 2004, 07:27:00 AM
Oh, please. Ann needs to get her head out of the sand. Has it ever occured to anyone that OBL might be a patsy for the powers that be in the US gov't?
The Bush and Bin Laden families have very close ties- Carlyle Group, etc. The day of 911, or day after (can't remember);while airports were shut down all over the country, Bush sent a jet around to pick up OBL's siblings and fly them out of the country. Hmmmm. Why might he have done that?
If the US wanted Bin Laden, they'd have him. They passed up several opportunities.
Now, think about this. If OBL was 'captured', who would those powers have to scare Americans into going along with the One World Order plan to rape and pillage at home and abroad- fill the pockets of the war machine- Haliburton, et al? They desperately needed a bad guy to justify EVERYTHING they are doing- and who better than an elusive Arab who hides out in caves- with his dialysis machine of course. Without a bad guy, the drama would end. Make sense?
Nope, there is no effort to find OBL. And, I think it's very plausible that they may have actually employed him to play the role of 'bad guy' in this drama, assuring him of complete safety. Saddam (who they really wanted- rather his country's resources) wouldn't have accepted that role, and never was a true threat, so out of left field comes OBL. Whose whereabouts will remain unknown until he dies of kidney failure. I figure that gives the Bush/Bin Laden/Cheney families etal ample time to take every penny they can squeeze out of the American public, strip us of our rights, and to gain control of the natural resources in Iraq- which was the goal all along.
Post by: thepatriot on April 15, 2004, 08:57:00 AM
Quote
On 2004-04-14 21:25:00, kaydeejaded wrote:
"Kerry won the Purple Heart three times for wounds suffered in action and was awarded the Bronze Star and the Navy's Silver Star for gallantry in action.
When Kerry returned home a highly decorated soldier, he joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, becoming a prominent antiwar spokesperson. He challenged the Nixon administration and as Kerry's public popularity soared, the FBI considered him a subversive. Brinkley reveals how White House aides tried to discredit Kerry. Refusing to be intimidated, Kerry ran for public office, eventually becoming a U.S. senator. He never forgot his fallen comrades. Working with Senator John McCain, he returned to Vietnam numerous times looking for MIAs and POWs, becoming the leading proponent of "normalization" of relations with Vietnam. When President Clinton officially recognized Vietnam in 1995, Kerry's three-decade-long tour of duty had at long last finally ended.
If it is believed that... elementary schools will be better managed by the governor and council, the commissioners of the literary fund or any other general authority of the government than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1081820/posts (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1081820/posts)
Kerry was in country 4 MONTHS, obviously putting himself in for medals every time he cut his hand.....I question his military service as much as Bush's 4 months 3 purple hearts with no lose of time that is Fucking impossible ask any Vet, if you believe this crap and some how think it makes him some kind of war hero or viable candidate for Commander in cheif its crazy. [ This Message was edited by: thepatriot on 2004-04-15 05:58 ]
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2004, 10:59:00 AM
Commander in Chief? More like Commander in Briefs.
:rofl:
Post by: Antigen on April 15, 2004, 11:28:00 AM
Ya'll might want to keep an eye on the Libertarian convention.
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0405/national_convention.html (http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0405/national_convention.html)
But even if a Lib delegate were to miraculously sweep the election, it still wouldn't make a whole lot of difference. The US president isn't like a king (except, of course, for possible inbreeding in recent years) But they don't get to overturn laws or really to do a whole lot of anything that their swarm of legal experts don't authorize. The office itself has momentum.
What we need is more involvement on the part of tax paying, voting, competent adults on the local and state levels. We need to quit sending half our earnings to those lunatics inside the beltway. All they do is get into trouble w/ it then whisk their beloved families off to safety while sending ours overseas to kill and die.
Patriot, I admire your grit and am grateful to you for your willingness to serve. But I think you're quite gullible. Sorry, I do. I don't think any US military action in the last 5 decades has been worthy of the blood of dedicated American soldiers.
If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even considering if there are men on base.
-- Dave Barry
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 15, 2004, 11:31:00 AM
who Bush would put in there I shudder to think about
Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself
--Jimmy Carter
Post by: thepatriot on April 15, 2004, 11:46:00 AM
Quote
On 2004-04-15 08:28:00, Antigen wrote:
"I agree, not a nickle's worth of difference.
Ya'll might want to keep an eye on the Libertarian convention.
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0405/national_convention.html (http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0405/national_convention.html)
But even if a Lib delegate were to miraculously sweep the election, it still wouldn't make a whole lot of difference. The US president isn't like a king (except, of course, for possible inbreeding in recent years) But they don't get to overturn laws or really to do a whole lot of anything that their swarm of legal experts don't authorize. The office itself has momentum.
What we need is more involvement on the part of tax paying, voting, competent adults on the local and state levels. We need to quit sending half our earnings to those lunatics inside the beltway. All they do is get into trouble w/ it then whisk their beloved families off to safety while sending ours overseas to kill and die.
Patriot, I admire your grit and am grateful to you for your willingness to serve. But I think you're quite gullible. Sorry, I do. I don't think any US military action in the last 5 decades has been worthy of the blood of dedicated American soldiers.If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even considering if there are men on base.
-- Dave Barry
"
I agree with what you are saying Ginger, although I am a realist when it comes to war , it sucks but it happens. National defense is necessary as far as the WMD deal in Iraq damed if ya do damed if ya don't its a messed up situation. I don't always support what opour government is doing I support my fellow soldires bottom line. Afganistan, we were rightly justified in going in 911 dictated that, they haven't found Bin Laden but hopefully they will. Look Jeraldo Rivera was one of the most anti-war Liberal people you could find, but after he went to Afganistan he changed his mind completely on the war on terrorism. War is reality it has been since the beginning of time, I am no war monger but I believe our country has to defend its self unconditionaly because if we don't and sit back and tie die our clothes and have love ins
and ignore threats to our way of life we will be spending Yen in the grocery store or standing in line for bread. The opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan is a good example of what people have died for to allow us to even have a open forum like this today. War sucks but it is reality , a utopian society will never exisit. As far as gullible well hey to each their own defense is necessary If loving my country makes me gullible I stand guilty, but that doesn't mean I agree with my goverment being a Patriot is a love of ones country and countrymen please don't confuse that with being gullible.[ This Message was edited by: thepatriot on 2004-04-15 08:51 ][ This Message was edited by: thepatriot on 2004-04-15 09:00 ][ This Message was edited by: thepatriot on 2004-04-15 09:01 ]
Post by: Antigen on April 15, 2004, 02:42:00 PM
If we were really fighting these wars and pursuing all of these constant military actions to defend the American way, I'd enlist. I'm that kinda gal. But that's not what's going on. Our military is defending Halliburton and Carlyle Group's profits. Nothing more, nothing less. The extended Binladen family is getting more benefit from these missions than anyone else, `cept maybe the Cheneys and their ilk. Oh, and BTW, when I say "their ilk", I include the Clinton's who have been majorly invested in international arms corporations for years.
Not a nickle's worth of difference.
I believe that human beings arrive on this Earth wanting to know absolutely everything, and the best thing we can do as parents is to get out of the way -- just be there to let them know what opportunities are there
-- Dorothy Werner, media liaison for the National Homeschool Association
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 15, 2004, 03:22:00 PM
Haliburton Caught with their Hand in the Cookie Jar
Haliburton Overchared 61 Million Dollars. Gee, I wish I had an extra $61 Million.
Source: Reuters, 2003-12-12
Candidate: Dick Cheney
A Pentagon audit of Halliburton, the oil services firm once run by Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites), found the company may have overbilled the U.S. government by more than $120 million on Iraq contracts, U.S. defense officials said on Thursday.
Defense officials said Halliburton's Kellogg Brown and Root unit, which has denied wrongdoing, may have been overcharged by a Kuwaiti sub-contractor by $61 million for fuel brought into Iraq from Kuwait under a deal signed in March with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild Iraq's oil industry.
That no-competition deal, which has clocked up about $2 billion in business so far, is set to be replaced by two new, competitively bid contracts to rebuild Iraq's oil sector.
After several delays, a decision on those $2 billion contracts is expected by mid-January and military sources said the audit would likely be considered when Halliburton's proposal was reviewed for the follow-on deals.
You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot
easier.
--GW Büsh, Governor of Texas. Governing Magazine, 7/98
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 15, 2004, 03:25:00 PM
"A Country that hides things is a Country afraid of getting caught." GWB Early in Bush's Press Conference, he condemned Iraq and Libya, North Korea, presumably all of the nations in the Axis of Evil. But as he should know, when you point one finger at someone else, you point three at yourself.
Source: Linda Lindauer, 2004-04-13
Candidate: President George Bush
The Bush Administration has been called the most Secretive Government in the history of the United States. What is he afraid of? GETTING CAUGHT!
The very first action George W Bush took upon moving into the White House was to bury the papers of President George HW Bush for 100 years. Unlike every other President, he and his father's presidential papers will not be available for scrutiny until long after their deaths. What's he afraid of?
Of course, Vice President Dick Cheney does not take a back seat to George when it comes to secrecy. Cheney has fought tooth and nail to keep every scrap of information regarding his Energy Taks Force a secret - not only from the public, but from the rest of government. Congress is charged with overseeing the Administrative Branch of government. The CBO asked for the minutes of the meetings, a list of participants, anything...and a Federal Court ordered Cheney to turn them over. Cheney's taking his secrets to the Supreme Court and put them in the
hands of his old buddy Justice Scalia. What's he afraid of?
After the 9/11 disaster, Congress, the families of the victims, the entire nation wanted to know what had occured. Bush opposed forming the 9/11 Commission. Once backed into a corner, he opposed releasing any of the paper trail from his office. Backed into another corner, he refused to allow his NSC Advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify. Backed into another corner, he refused to allow the declassification of the PDB dated August 4. Now we know what he was hiding..."Osama Bin Laden DETERMINED to attack the US."
It will take forty years to unravel the secrets of this administration. Bush said it. He's afraid of getting caught.
Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
Mahatma Gandhi, My Autobigraphy, p. 446
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2004, 07:01:00 PM
:flame:
Post by: Deborah on April 15, 2004, 07:53:00 PM
Anyone else notice how little Bush supporters actually know about him? Speaking particularly about the ones posting here, and in other threads.
The only thing worse than debating with an ill informed Republican, is debating with a religous zealot who gets so worked up they're foaming at the mouth and spitting on you; and a look that could kill.
Post by: Deborah on April 15, 2004, 08:22:00 PM
April 14, 2004
Friends,
I have never seen a head so far up a Presidential ass (pardon my Falluja) than the one I saw last night at the "news conference" given by George W. Bush. He's still talking about finding "weapons of mass destruction" -- this time on Saddam's "turkey farm." Turkey indeed. Clearly the White House believes there are enough idiots in the 17 swing states who will buy this. I think they are in for a rude awakening.
I've been holed up for weeks in the editing room finishing my film ("Fahrenheit 911"). That's why you haven't heard from me lately. But after last night's Lyndon Johnson impersonation from the East Room -- essentially promising to send even more troops into the Iraq sinkhole -- I had to write you all a note.
First, can we stop the Orwellian language and start using the proper names for things? Those are not "contractors" in Iraq. They are not there to fix a roof or to pour concrete in a driveway. They are MERCENARIES and SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE. They are there for the money, and the money is very good if you live long enough to spend it.
Halliburton is not a "company" doing business in Iraq. It is a WAR PROFITEER, bilking millions from the pockets of average Americans. In past wars they would have been arrested -- or worse.
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? You closed down a friggin' weekly newspaper, you great giver of freedom and democracy! Then all hell broke loose. The paper only had 10,000 readers! Why are you smirking?
One year after we wiped the face of the Saddam statue with our American flag before yanking him down, it is now too dangerous for a single media person to go to that square in Baghdad and file a report on the wonderful one-year anniversary celebration. Of course, there is no celebration, and those brave blow-dried "embeds" can't even leave the safety of the fort in downtown Baghdad. They never actually SEE what is taking place across Iraq (most of the pictures we see on TV are shot by Arab media and some Europeans). When you watch a report "from Iraq" what you are getting is the press release handed out by the U.S. occupation force and repeated to you as "news."
I currently have two cameramen/reporters doing work for me in Iraq for my movie (unbeknownst to the Army). They are talking to soldiers and gathering the true sentiment about what is really going on. They Fed Ex the footage back to me each week. That's right, Fed Ex. Who said we haven't brought freedom to Iraq! The funniest story my guys tell me is how when they fly into Baghdad, they don't have to show a passport or go through immigration. Why not? Because they have not traveled from a foreign country -- they're coming from America TO America, a place that is ours, a new American territory called Iraq.
There is a lot of talk amongst Bush's opponents that we should turn this war over to the United Nations. Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess? I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.
Until then, enjoy the "pacification" of Falluja, the "containment" of Sadr City, and the next Tet Offensive â?? oops, I mean, "terrorist attack by a small group of Baathist loyalists" (Hahaha! I love writing those words, Baathist loyalists, it makes me sound so Peter Jennings!) -- followed by a "news conference" where we will be told that we must "stay the course" because we are "winning the hearts and minds of the people."
I'll write again soon. Don't despair. Remember, the American people are not that stupid. Sure, we can be frightened into a war, but we always come around sooner or later -- and the one way this is NOT like Vietnam is that it hasn't taken the public four long years to figure out they were lied to.
Now if Bush would just quit speaking in public and giving me more free material for my movie, I can get back to work and get it done. I've got four weeks left 'til completion.
Yours,
Michael Moore
http://www.michaelmoore.com (http://www.michaelmoore.com)
Post by: Deborah on April 15, 2004, 08:33:00 PM
New Reports Of US Planting WMD In Iraq
Mehr News Agency
Tehran, Iran
4-14-4
BASRA - Fifty days after the first reports that the U.S. forces were unloading weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in southern Iraq, new reports
about the movement of these weapons have been disclosed.
Given the recent scandals to the effect that the U.S. president was privy to the 9/11 plot, they might try to immediately announce the discovery of
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to overshadow the scandals and prevent a further decline of Bushís public opinion rating as the
election approaches.
Sources in Iraq speculate that occupation forces are using the recent unrest in Iraq to divert attention from their surreptitious shipments of
WMD into the country.
An Iraqi source close to the Basra Governorís Office told the MNA that new information shows that a large part of the WMD, which was secretly
brought to southern and western Iraq over the past month, are in containers falsely labeled as containers of the Maeresk shipping company and some consignments bearing the labels of organizations such as the Red Cross or the USAID in order to disguise them as relief shipments.
The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, added that Iraqi officials including forces loyal to the Iraqi Governing Council stationed in southern Iraq have been forbidden from inspecting or supervising the transportation of these consignments. He went on to say that the occupation forces have ordered Iraqi officials to forward any questions on the issue to the coalition forces. Even the officials of the
international relief organizations have informed the Iraqi officials that they would only accept responsibility for relief shipments which have
been registered and managed by their organizations.
The Iraqi source also confirmed the report about suspicious trucks with fake Saudi and Jordanian license plates entering Iraq at night last week,
stressing that the Saudi and Jordanian border guards did not attempt to inspect the trucks but simply delivered them to the U.S. and British
forces stationed on Iraqís borders.
However, the source expressed ignorance whether the governments of Saudi Arabia and Jordan were aware of such movements.
A professor of physics at Baghdad University also told the MNA correspondent that a group of his colleagues who are highly specialized in military, chemical and biological fields have been either bribed or threatened during the last weeks to provide written information on what
they know about various programs and research centers and the possible storage of WMD equipment.
The professor also said these people have been openly asked to confirm or deny the existence of research or related WMD equipment. A large number
of these scientists, who are believed to be under the surveillance of U.S. intelligence operatives, have claimed that if they refuse to comply with this request, they may be killed or arrested on charges of concealing the truth if these weapons are found by the Bush administration in the future.
He said that the Iraqi scientists believe their lives would be in danger if they decline to cooperate with the occupation forces, especially when they recall that senior U.S. officer Michael Peterson once said, ìIraqi scientists are at any case a threat to the U.S. administration, whether
they talk or not.î
A source close to the Iraqi Governing Council said, ìIn the meantime, many suspect containers disguised as fuel supplies have been moved about
by some units of the U.S. special forces. The move has been carried out under heavy security measures. Also, there are unofficial reports that
the containers held biological and acteriological toxins in liquid form. It is possible that the news about the discovery of the WMDs would be announced later.î
He also said that such mixtures had been used by the Saddam regime in the 1990s.
The source added that some provocative actions such as the closure of Al-Hawza periodical by U.S. administrator Paul Bremer, the secret
meetings between his envoys with some extremist groups who have no relations with the Iraqi Governing Council, the sudden upsurge in violence in central and southern Iraq, a number of activities which have stoked up the wrath of the prominent Shia clerics, and finally, the spate
of kidnappings and the baseless charges against the Iranian charge díaffaires in Baghdad are providing the necessary smokescreen for the
transportation of the WMD to their intended locations.
He said they are quite aware that the White House in cooperation with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has directly tasked the Defense
Department to hide these weapons. Given the recent scandals to the effect that the U.S. president was privy to the 9/11 plot, they might try to immediately announce the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to overshadow the scandals and prevent a further decline of Bushís public opinion rating as the election approaches.
© Copyright 2004 Mehr News Agency
Disclaimer
Email This Article
MainPage
http://www.rense.com (http://www.rense.com)
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2004, 08:33:00 PM
:rofl:
Post by: thepatriot on April 15, 2004, 08:50:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2004, 09:15:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-04-15 16:53:00, Deborah wrote:
"
The Bush Administration's Anti-Life policies will covertly kill more people than the airplanes of 911.
Anyone else notice how little Bush supporters actually know about him? Speaking particularly about the ones posting here, and in other threads.
The only thing worse than debating with an ill informed Republican, is debating with a religous zealot who gets so worked up they're foaming at the mouth and spitting on you; and a look that could kill.
"
Oh please, if anybody is foaming at the mouth, it's the rabid BUSH BASHERS who in their desperation to win an election started a partisan blame-game only to discover that the one person who could be held directly responsible for the greatest intelligence failure in our nation's history is a member of the 9-11 Commission.
:smokin:
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2004, 09:15:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-04-15 17:50:00, thepatriot wrote:
"The Mehr News agency and Micheal Moore....Deborah listening the that rhetoric just shows how gullible you are to far left propaganda, MICHEAL MOORE is a friggin communist. Mean while my fellow soliers die in Iraq and you accuse them of planting WMD????? Why don't you speak to a soldier that has been over there or is over there now befor you spew of something you know nothing about other than reading Iranian News and Micheal Moor propaganda. Your to quick to point a finger and call someone a "REPUBLICAN" I am a Independent with morals,values and a love for my country , I say again MY COUNTRY not my goverment. That is what sets me apart from a holier than though Republican or whining communist fufucking left wing liberal, yes you struck a nreve but I respect your right to speak what you feel. "
:nworthy:
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2004, 09:18:00 PM
Jamie Gorelick come on down, formerasst. to Janet "Waco" Reno I see she learned well. Why has she not recused herself from this panel??????
Post by: thepatriot on April 15, 2004, 09:20:00 PM
Post by: Deborah on April 15, 2004, 09:32:00 PM
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/04/far04012.html (http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/04/far04012.html)
Deep Dark Truthful Mirror
April 15, 2004 by Maureen Farrell
Post by: thepatriot on April 15, 2004, 09:50:00 PM
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 15, 2004, 09:52:00 PM
The truth is the only thing rabid is the facts, they are so terrible that the knee jerk reaction is to not believe it. "Escape from Freedom" The actuality is too much for people to handle so they vehemently defend for the other "reality" is to frightening to handle.
that book is excellent it is a must read.
Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.
Thomas Jefferson, 1787
Post by: Anonymous on April 15, 2004, 10:37:00 PM
The good news is the more Senators Clinton and
Kennedy beat the drum for Kerry, the better for Bush because these two career politicians ran out of Get-Outta-Jail-Free passes some time ago.
:rofl:
Post by: Deborah on April 16, 2004, 08:37:00 AM
Like I said Patriot- if the US really wanted OBL they'd have him. They more desperately need a 'bad guy' to carry out their agenda.
***Slick Willy was too busy in the Oval office getting a hinkleman from Monica, 911 is a indictment of everyone on capitol hill.***
Clinton's sexual activities are the least of my concerns. I doubt that those activities interfered with his duties. Everyone has sex, except those who think it's a sin. I resent that any of my tax dollars went toward that ridiculous investigation.
***Typical liberal you only blame Bush, a republican or the religious right insted of sharing the blame***
I believe as our friend Frod- The Dems and Repubs are two cheeks on the same flabby ass. What I noticed is that the AVERAGE american was better able to meet their needs when Clinton was in office. The national debt was lower. While he's definitely part of the elite political club, he was possibly less greedy than BushCo.
Patriot, can you tell us- in your own words- how you think Bush's policies and NAFTA are going to benefit the average American, not the CORPs whose profits will skyrocket by dramatically cutting labor costs, but the average Joe/Jill working American who is trying to raise their kids and provide the basic necessities of life- which is the majority of Americans, btw? Other than the lame tax break for children- which is a drop of salve on a gapping wound.
It will be interesting to hear the US soldiers reports in Michael Moore's upcoming film. I happen to know a couple of people who have family there and the letters coming home are not rosey.
Can you tell us how you define Communist, again in your own words, and show some examples of how MM fits your description?
I'm not gullible. I am open to considering all possiblities and refuse to get my 'news' from limited sources. At this point, I think the report is plausible- Bush needs a bail out. He knows there are materials to construct WMD. Why?Because he KNOWS that AMERICAN CORPs sold them to Saddam. If the US Gov't was so worried about 'terrorists' possessing WMD, then wouldn't they restrict US Corps from selling them to questionable people/countries.
Can you not see that 1 + 1 = 2. This was a long range plan. There have been a couple of obsticles (no WMD) for example. I bet they're all scratching their heads wondering what the hell he did with them. Maybe he sold them to Korea. Perhaps Saddam realized he was being set up and removed them in order to play a joke on Bush. I personally will not be surprised if WMD are found on the 'turkey farm' and that it happens before the election.
Post by: thepatriot on April 16, 2004, 09:09:00 AM
I agree but if he would have been minding the store and not Monica's mouth it would'nt have been a issue.
*Patriot, can you tell us- in your own words- how you think Bush's policies and NAFTA are going to benefit the average American, not the CORPs whose profits will skyrocket by dramatically cutting labor costs, but the average Joe/Jill working American who is trying to raise their kids and provide the basic necessities of life- which is the majority of Americans, btw? Other than the lame tax break for children- which is a drop of salve on a gapping wound. * = Excuse me where did I ever post I agreed with Bush's polices??
*It will be interesting to hear the US soldiers reports in Michael Moore's upcoming film. I happen to know a couple of people who have family there and the letters coming home are not rosey. * =
Micheal Moore propaganda again I already posted what I think about this idoit.
*Can you tell us how you define Communist, again in your own words, and show some examples of how MM fits your description? *
Again see Micheal Moore, Communists redistribution of wealth for one, "gee wiz your making too much money although you earned it and started from nothing working your ass off, lets share it with Joe Blow who makes less beacuse it isn't fare", unions send 10 men to do a two man job and mandate this on contractors, just a few examples get over it life aint fair WORK!
*Can you not see that 1 + 1 = 2. This was a long range plan. There have been a couple of obsticles (no WMD) for example. I bet they're all scratching their heads wondering what the hell he did with them. Maybe he sold them to Korea. Perhaps Saddam realized he was being set up and removed them in order to play a joke on Bush. I personally will not be surprised if WMD are found on the 'turkey farm' and that it happens before the election.*
your point is well taken, patrionizing but well taken non the less.
Sounds like a bunch of crap spewed from the liberal mouth of political pundit James Carvelle, but hey you are entitled.
Again you reply as if I am a Bush supporter or Republican....NOT read a little further into my posts if you feel the need to respond. [ This Message was edited by: thepatriot on 2004-04-16 06:18 ]
Post by: thepatriot on April 16, 2004, 09:25:00 AM
Todd
Post by: Cayo Hueso on April 16, 2004, 09:58:00 AM
A drug is neither moral nor immoral - it's a chemical compound. The compound itself is not a menace to society until a human being treats it as if consumption bestowed a temporary license to act like an asshole.
--Frank Zappa
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 16, 2004, 10:35:00 AM
thats not acceptable, the economy's in shambles but the average american is not making enough money to shop places other then walmart to boycott walmart to make walmart stop outsourcing??
where are the good old days of real unity and acitivism?
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to use the Net and he won't bother you for weeks.
--Anonymous
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 16, 2004, 10:36:00 AM
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins; all of them imaginary.
H.L. Mencken, 1923
Post by: thepatriot on April 16, 2004, 10:37:00 AM
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 16, 2004, 10:42:00 AM
In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
--Thomas Jefferson 1798
Post by: thepatriot on April 16, 2004, 10:46:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 16, 2004, 11:44:00 AM
Sorry guys, but I see no reason to excuse Clinton for doing his best work with his pants down. Ditto Hillary and her "it takes a village" commie crap.
:wave:
Post by: Deborah on April 16, 2004, 02:21:00 PM
I don't think I've ever heard MM suggest redistribution of the wealth, but I don't think it's a bad idea if done correctly. Working people definitely have a cap on what they can earn- minimum wage. Society sets the 'value' of everyone's contribution in whatever field/trade they work. If we aren't going to cap the elite, then perhaps a flat tax is in order, so everyone is paying their fair share. We need to adjust the Fed Poverty Level and those who fall below the ACTUAL level pay no taxes. Truth is, there are folks working their asses off everyday, some at two jobs to survive in this economy. Working does not ensure you will have everything you need to have a decent and fulfilled life. We would not do well with a predominantly middle-class professional population. We need diversity, and people need to make a living wage.
You have any idea how many WORKING POOR exist in this country?
Communism isn't much different that Capitalism with the primary difference being who owns the means of production- Government or Individuals. Not alot else different. While Capitalism may be a sight better, we are far from having a system that meets citizens needs, and it's getting worse.
Post by: thepatriot on April 16, 2004, 03:23:00 PM
Post by: thepatriot on April 16, 2004, 03:27:00 PM
Post by: thepatriot on April 16, 2004, 03:30:00 PM
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 16, 2004, 03:36:00 PM
Why is that..?
do they think we'd all go stark raving mad with a little extra money in our pockets?
Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-- Emo Phillips
Post by: thepatriot on April 16, 2004, 03:44:00 PM
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 16, 2004, 04:50:00 PM
Wicked men obey from fear, good men from love.
--Aristotle
Post by: Anonymous on April 16, 2004, 04:52:00 PM
Thanks Hillary, remember when you had the chance to reform the private healthcare insurance industry but managed to screw it up? Nice going, and to think the people in NY were stupid enough to elect you as their senator. Guess they didn't have a choice, seeing as she bought the election.
Post by: thepatriot on April 16, 2004, 04:56:00 PM
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 16, 2004, 05:04:00 PM
I started this statement with I feel because it is not a fact that I know it is just an opinion....I really think she did have excellent socialized *gasp* socialized theres that word :lol: healthcare plans laid out but they just got pushed aside and butched and the 1996 it was 96 right welfare reform act what an abomination. I was disgusted..caps on food stamps???? mandatory job training with no set childcare. How half assed. Sad, weak. Bad reforms.
Republican n. A liberty despising, money worshiping, control freak. Democrat n. A liberty despising, social engineering, control freak.
-- Anonymous
Post by: Anonymous on April 16, 2004, 05:25:00 PM
REAL HEALTHCARE REFORM
"Now what I tried to do before won't work; maybe we can do it in another way. That's what we've tried to do, a step at a time until eventually we finish this." These were the words of President Clinton in his September 1997 speech before the Service Employees International Union in Washington, DC. What was he talking about? Reducing the size of the government? Implementing tax relief? Achieving welfare reform? No, he was talking about reviving Hillary Clinton's disastrous healthcare plan that died in 1994.
What is the ultimate goal? Implementing a plan for socialized medicine for all citizens. The Clinton Administration continually advocates for government solutions for any problem, usually wrapping themselves in the mantra of "protecting the children." Just recently, Vice President Al Gore said in his convention speech in Los Angeles, "We will move toward universal health coverage, step by step, starting with all children." Call it want you want, socialized medicine, single-payer or universal care, it has the same results -- government-run healthcare in which government bureaucrats and politicians decide what care you will get.
Just when people thought the advocates of socialized medicine had given up and it was safe to come out, Clinton Care II, like the mythical phoenix, is rising from the ashes. Americans may have thought they had elected a Congress in 1994 and 1996 that disagreed with big government solutions to solving our problems, but when it comes to the delivery of healthcare, they are wrong. Many members of the 106th Congress seem to be perfectly willing to provide just what "Doctor" Clinton ordered -- socialized medicine. Many senators and representatives are unwittingly playing into the hands of the President and First Lady and other single-payer, government-run medicine advocates by giving them what they want, bit by bit. The pieces of the government-run national health insurance puzzle are coming together all too quickly.
In addition to implementing socialized medicine at the federal level, the strategy also appears to be to establish socialized medicine in certain friendly states. Several states are looking at single-payer systems: California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington are the most visible and have organizations or even legislation proposed to establish state-level socialized medicine. Although the leaders of the efforts in these states often refer to other countries' socialized medicine systems as possible models to follow -- such as Canada or Great Britain -- it is ironic that these activists refuse to acknowledge or simply dismiss the difficulty these very countries are having with their healthcare. These countries face ever-rising healthcare costs, their citizens have difficulty accessing care, and treatment is frequently denied. These symptoms are becoming commonplace in countries with socialized medicine.
Taxpayers must be skeptical when the President, Vice President, members of Congress and government bureaucrats use words like "invest" and "standards" to describe some new healthcare program. These statements are simply code words that will allow a politician to raise taxes and a government bureaucrat to decide what type of care a patient will get. Those choices should be made by the consumer.
Some of the major pieces of legislation pending before Congress and state legislatures are knee-jerk reactions that contain expensive mandates to purportedly fix problems with health maintenance organizations (HMOs). How much could additional government mandates cost? The actuarial firm of Milliman & Robertson estimates that some of the proposed "solutions" could cause premiums to rise an average of 23 percent. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that for every 1 percent increase in health insurance premiums, 200,000 people lose coverage. Even worse, many of the bills open up employers, who provide healthcare coverage, to liability by their employees. This will dramatically increase health insurance costs and risks to employers. The end result will be that many employers will simply drop employee health benefits which they are not required to provide, and more Americans will be left without health insurance coverage.
What is the real solution to rising healthcare costs and better quality? The tax code must be changed so that individuals can purchase their own health insurance and receive a tax benefit. This will force insurance companies to focus on the needs of individual consumers instead of the needs of employers, who currently provide most of the private health insurance in the country. By providing more competition and choices, quality and value will increase and prices will go down, just as with any other product or service. After all, consumers make important choices in the type of cars and houses they purchase and the accompanying insurance coverage without depending on their employer or the government to make the decisions for them.
Congress needs to get out of the mandate-du-jour business and give consumers real choice in their healthcare purchases. Fortunately, some members of Congress from both sides of the aisle are doing just that by introducing bills that provide tax credits for the purchase of private health insurance.
http://www.cagw.org (http://www.cagw.org)
Post by: Anonymous on April 16, 2004, 07:32:00 PM
There was a time when one salary could support a household. No longer. It requires two and then some. I resent your comments and imagine that you are really out of touch with reality on these issues and have bought what the media and others say about welfare, etc. You should call your local welfare office and run a theoretical by them, then come back and report to us what you would be eligible for. There are too many myths about welfare and people don't bother to inform themselves, but continue to complain about things that just aren't true.
Want to complain about 4th generation welfare recipients. Take a look at corporate welfare. You might be astounded. I was. Social welfare is but a SMALL fraction of Corp welfare. And personally, I'd rather my money go to a needy family that a glutonous whore who can't be satiated.
My point being, there are not that many 'lazy' people in the world. The vast majority want to provide their families needs and feel dignity in doing so. They aren't looking for a handout- and if they were, its not going to happen at the welfare office. Having worked with a single mother of 4, I am very well informed on the issue. She frequently had to fight for what she was entitled to because the case worker lied about what benefits were available. Consider this as well. That woman has many family members who pay into the system. If, as long ago, we didn't have a welfare system, her family would 'theoretically' have more to assist her with. I'm glad a 'small' portion of her family's tax dollars end up with her, via the government of course.
Aid for dependent children (AFDC) is a joke. You really should check it out if you're vaguely interested in the truth.
And you obviously haven't studied the concept of redistribution. Doesn't mean someone would be coming to take part of your middle-class income. It's not even robbing the rich to feed the poor. It's about a realistic and more level playing field. If we sat down to play Monopoly and I gave you $22 and myself $2000, how long before you're deep in hock with me, that is if you are still interested in playing. That's the reality for many, many Americans. I did a paper on this in sociology. Can't remember the breakdown, but it was eye opening.
When Capitalism is completely open-ended with no pro-human social policies, you have decay of a society. Probably why the US has dropped to #6 in Quality of Life. That is a pathetic shame.
Yeh, there are trade schools, thank god, as I said we NEED diversity. That is not the issue. The issue is that there are millions and millions of Americans who WORK in trades and professions everyday who are paid based on what society says their work is worth. And it ain't enough buddy. Not in this economy. They might be wealthy in China or Mexico, but in this economy, they are border-line poverty. And it most times hasn't a thing to do with HOW HARD people work. Do you not understand what I'm saying, are do you disagree? And if the later, based on what?
Why don't you post the numbers showing how many people are on welfare. How much of our tax dollars go to social welfare vs corp welfare. How many people are homeless. How many working poor in the US- if you know what that term means. Are there enough jobs to employ every unemployed American?
I wonder if you're interested enough to research this, or would prefer to spout the crap you've heard others say without validating it. You're eyes appear to be close and you're in a tiny, comfy little box with big judgments about issues you know little about.
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 16, 2004, 08:07:00 PM
my comfy box thank God yes it is comfy...but I a few semesters ago for a Sociology of the family class wrote my paper on how bad Clintions reforms were..not offering Childcare while making it mandatory for a mother to be at a said meeting..during said time ect.
I..at the.. time had cute little pie charts outlining the amounts in the governments budget spent on defense, blah blah blah and wellfare that made welfare look like nothing in comparison and these were pre-9/11 spending figures.
I am well aware that the goverment would rather spend 40billion to fund some fat cat on wall street then 40dollars in food stamps for a welfare mother what I just don't know is why.
I take offense that one would think I would be so out of touch as to pass judgement on a welfare mother......ugh!!! When it takes two people working 2 jobs 80 hours to meet the poverty line at minimum wage Facts from Sociology book here in NY of course.....argh.....Not a FAT CAT ...... :sad:
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 16, 2004, 08:09:00 PM
but bleeding HEART LIBERAL ::mecry::
Post by: Anonymous on April 16, 2004, 08:12:00 PM
-------------------------------------------------
CLINTONS? BOOK DEALS PROVE THEY NEVER NEEDED ?ILLEGAL? LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDS
Judicial Watch Brought 1994 Suit Against Unlawful Clinton Solicitations
Fund Eventually Closed When Chinese Money-Laundering Revealed Through Charley Trie
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government abuse and corruption, has been proven correct. In 1994, Judicial Watch brought its first lawsuit against the Clintons for their illegal solicitation and receipt of monies from the American people to allegedly pay their legal bills. As set forth in the complaint, this constituted illegal gratuities under U.S. anti-bribery and public corruption laws. At the time, Judicial Watch pointed out that the Clintons? solicitations amounted to little more than graft, since their legal fees and expenses -- in defense of their myriad of scandals - could be paid from the proceeds of large book deal advances and other benefits they would receive after leaving office. As predicted, Bill and Hillary Clinton will reap $18 million at least from book advances alone -- proving that their legal defense fund was just a way to profit, illegally, from their scandals. Indeed, it was revealed during the Chinagate investigations ? which were sparked by judicial Watch?s early deposition of John Huang, a suspected Chinese spy ? that over $600,000 in Communist Chinese cash was laundered into the Clintons? first legal defense fund, which Judicial Watch?s efforts helped to shut down.
?Once again, Judicial Watch has been proven correct in its early assessment that the Clintons? solicitations to the American people were just an illegal scam to raise money for themselves and their lawyers ? all of whom tragically profited from the scandals. This underscores why Judicial Watch, in its continuing 80 plus lawsuits against the Clintons, is working hard to bring the Clintons and their lawyers to justice,? stated Judicial Watch Chairman, Larry Klayman.
?We will not rest until the Clintons pay a heavy price for their numerous crimes,? added Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton.
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 16, 2004, 08:17:00 PM
again
Post by: Anonymous on April 18, 2004, 06:47:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-04-16 13:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Why or why can't we have affordable health coverage in this country? That's all I want to know. Ever lost your benefits and been invited to participate in Cobra at astronomical rates? What a nightmare, you lose your job (or full-time status) so your income drops and then to keep your insurance premium, you end up spending damn near all your monthly income. Worse still, have a pre-exisiting condition? Forgetaboutit! No one wants to insure you, period.
Thanks Hillary, remember when you had the chance to reform the private healthcare insurance industry but managed to screw it up? Nice going, and to think the people in NY were stupid enough to elect you as their senator. Guess they didn't have a choice, seeing as she bought the election."
2000 gala for Clintons probed by FEC
Event raising $1 million for N.Y. senator also investigated by grand jury
By Michael Cieply and James Bates
Los Angeles Times
April 18, 2004
The Federal Election Commission is investigating a Hollywood gala that raised more than $1 million for Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, according to people familiar with the probe. The FEC investigation, launched several weeks ago, comes atop a U.S. Justice Department inquiry that has focused in recent months on the event and former Clinton finance executive David Rosen. In addition, documents reviewed by the Los Angeles Times indicate that a federal grand jury in Los Angeles has been examining evidence of wrongdoing by a number of people in connection with the activities of Aaron Tonken, the fund-raising impresario behind the event.
The scope of the grand jury inquiry and the identity of its targets remained unclear. The Justice Department is believed to be focusing on whether anyone made false statements about how contributions were collected and disbursed.
Tonken, who peaded guilty in December to two fraud counts in connection with his high-profile charity galas, has been cooperating with federal authorities while awaiting sentencing, according to people familiar with his case.
Since last month, FEC investigators have been seeking testimony from a number of witnesses with knowledge of the August 2000 political gala.
Held on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, the event at the estate of radio mogul Ken Roberts was billed as a tribute to outgoing President Bill Clinton. But the gala simultaneously gave a much-needed cash infusion to the then-first lady's successful Senate campaign.
Internet entrepreneur Peter Paul - who paid for the event and is awaiting trial on federal charges of business-related fraud - unsuccessfully asked the commission nearly three years ago to investigate the Clinton campaign for allegedly underreporting his contribution.
At the time, Paul was jailed in Brazil, awaiting extradition to the United States. He is being held without bail in Long Island, N.Y.
Paul is among those asked recently to cooperate with the election commission probe, according to people with knowledge of the situation.
The event he helped underwrite has been estimated to have cost as much as $2 million, including expenses associated with a roster of star entertainers. This year, Paul sued the Clintons and others in Los Angeles Superior Court, claiming that they defrauded him in connection with the fund-raiser.
David Kendall, who represents the Clintons in the suit, said he plans this month to seek a dismissal.
Kendall declined to discuss the Justice Department probe and referred questions about the election commission action to another attorney, who did not return calls.
An attorney for ex-finance chief Rosen did not respond to a request for comment. Based in Chicago, Rosen is a longtime political money consultant who recently worked on retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark's failed presidential campaign.
A commission spokesman declined to comment on the investigation; a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles could not be reached for comment.
Last week, at a creditors' meeting in Tonken's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, Tonken refused several dozen times to answer questions, invoking his right against self-incrimination.
The Los Angeles Times is a Tribune Publishing newspaper.
Copyright © 2004, The Baltimore Sun
Post by: Anonymous on April 20, 2004, 09:01:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 20, 2004, 09:10:00 AM
Post by: thepatriot on April 20, 2004, 10:11:00 AM
Post by: Deborah on April 20, 2004, 03:23:00 PM
No Kaydee, you've probably figured it out by now, but I wasn't addressing you. But, still waiting on the figures to prove that Welfare is abused by lazy people.... Probably won't see them. Patriot would apparently rather stay ignorant than educate himself. He might have to rethink his opinions- too big a challenge.
Post by: Deborah on April 20, 2004, 03:26:00 PM
How would your life be different if the US was Socialist or had some reasonable Socialist policies? For instance, everyone has access to health care. No insurance bullshit and scams. That would actually be a benefit.
How would it negatively effect you? Be specific.
Post by: thepatriot on April 20, 2004, 03:51:00 PM
Post by: thepatriot on April 20, 2004, 03:54:00 PM
Post by: thepatriot on April 20, 2004, 04:00:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 20, 2004, 04:45:00 PM
Now, we can hope that reform will fix our failing system, but the reality is our government is not capable of fixing anything but their own bank accounts. Therefore, the point is not what our government can do for us, but what we can do for ourselves. We are addicted to cheap health care, cheap food, cheap oil, cheap cars.... We have forgotten our responsibility to value these things. With regards to health, it's simple. Start doing what you can do to stay healthy. We all know that eating right, excersise, drug use in moderation are keys to staying healthy, but we don't. We all know that flossing our teeth will prevent tooth loss, but we don't. We all know that being thousands of dollars in debt including car and mortgage debt is a trap, but we do it anyway.
Americans have to stop depending on our corrupt, impotent governement to bail us out. Has it ever occured to you that you are being herded off a cliff?
Post by: Deborah on April 20, 2004, 08:16:00 PM
Chinese medicine is very different, or was, with a focus on prevention. Our interns are not taught nutrition and do not make a connection between diet and health. Seen what's on the menu at a hospital lately. Our health care system will 'make you sick' if you aren't already. More profitable. I feel no empathy for doctors. Around here you can't even find one who works on Friday. Perhaps they need to work by the hour- they might have more integrity, and we'd probably have far fewer in the business for the money rather than healing people.
I disagree with your comment that we have become "addicted to cheap health care, cheap food, cheap oil, cheap cars."
None of those things are cheap.
The least expensive car on the market now costs more than the house we bought in 1973. Think the cost of production increased that much? All that additional profit went somewhere.
When I started driving, around 1970, gas was .15/gal. Alternatives are shelved until the oil cartel pumps the last drop of petroleum out of the ground. We aren't addicted to CHEAP things. We are being fucked by every corp that provides basic necessities. The cost of things is totally arbitrary and subject to the corp whims and desires.
I'm all about people earning a living wage and putting a cap on the earnings of CEO/Middle Mgrs.
Here's my question. Anyone who is awake and aware realizes that the gap between the rich and poor is growing. The middle class shrinking. The cost of living increasing every year. Where does it end? With a total collapse of the economic system when the majority can no longer afford services and goodies, much less basic necessities?
Post by: Deborah on April 20, 2004, 08:36:00 PM
What a gross exaggeration, "There are many people in this country with little or no income, ie; section 8 that have excellent healthcare provided through their state, I know I have a sister that is on it and it pays for far more than my blue cross/blue sheild pays."
Excellent? You sound like a fucking politician.
If there are two treatment options, Medicaid is always going to approve the cheapest, and usually the least effective treatment. You cannot see a specialist without a referal and certainly can't pick him/her.
Case workers lie to recipients on a daily basis. If you don't know what you're eligible for you can really get screwed. Many times, parents aren't covered, only the children.
If your policy is that bad, you might think about shopping around.
The people who are benefiting from Welfare are doctors, dentists, drug companies, grocers, Section 8 slumlords.
You could direct some of your disgust toward the latter. Around here they rake in $900+ a month for properties that should be condemned.
Very, very few of our tax dollars go the actual welfare recipient. No, the majority of our tax dollars are going to those listed above.
Oh, and the latest scandal around here- dentist who are doing shotty work on Medicaid patients (usually children) and overbilling the government. Putting in unnecessary fillings, caps, etc. Sometimes not bothering to use Novacaine--OUCH!!-- more profitable.
And, Medicaid just LOVES to pay for Ritalin, Adderall, Antidepressants, and the like. They don't pay for no counseling though.
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2004-04-20 17:41 ]
Post by: Anonymous on April 20, 2004, 08:48:00 PM
Debt is being shoved down our throats. Are you aware that they now have home loans for people who have no income? Figure that one out. You can buy a car and not have a payment for one year. It's crazy!
If you think the gap between the rich and poor is wide now, wait until this debt bubble burst. Our government is stealing our future from us. We will be lucky to have any health care, let alone "quality" health care.
Post by: Deborah on April 20, 2004, 09:08:00 PM
I did a little research on this for a Sociology paper. Here's what I learned.
The Real Estate "Market" is out of control.
Everytime a house sells (about every 4 years for the avg American), $10-15,000+ is added to the value of the home; whether it's worth it or not. The agents have to get paid and of course, the owner wants to make profit.
Joe sells his house for $165K, and suddenly every house for a square mile is worth $165K; again, whether they are or not.
Consequently, the 'value' of homes is exceeding people's ability to afford them.
It used to be that one would not qualify for a payment greater than 1/4 their monthly income.
Not enough qualifying buyers.
They increased it to 1/3 their monthly income.
Again, not enough qualifying buyers.
Wahla... Zero Down, Zero Closing, No Doc-Stated Income loans. And the latest 'Interest Only' loan. Sounds great, but what many don't realize is that its an ARM and in 5 years they may not be able to afford their home. Industry couldn't care less. There's money to be made in foreclosures too. Although they would like people to think they don't like to get homes back. Justifies them charging a higher interest rate for those 'risky' borrowers.
What's next? This would be obvious to a child. Why are so many people in denial about the fact that cost of living is growing faster than incomes?
Post by: Deborah on April 20, 2004, 10:28:00 PM
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/loveanddiane/ (http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/loveanddiane/)
Promises to dispell the stereotypical myths of welfare, etc.
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/loveandd ... urces.html (http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/loveanddiane/resources.html)
And some good links on Poverty here
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/loveandd ... es_02.html (http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/loveanddiane/resources_02.html)
Those who can, tune in and we can discuss it here. I hope I'm not disappointed. The filmaker sounded sincere.
Post by: thepatriot on April 21, 2004, 09:14:00 AM
Like I said if your life is so bad in the states why are you here? You seem to have all the answers I suggest you run for office. But I assure you one thing , with all the far left rhetoric ans socialism you spew, your average you six pack american would NEVER vote for anyone with your blinded view of this Utopian socialistic society. I guess I just get a little pissed when people sit around with their hands out wanting more from the government, no thanks , I can take care of myself thank you. Why do far left liberals like yourself always look to the government to take care of every aspect of their life. Thats the problem with BOTH PARTIES, they try to dumb down americans into believeing that they need them in every aspect of their lives. Health care hell I know it needs to be fixed, how ? shit I wish I had the answers. Gross exaggeration??? sorry i speak from experiance I am sorry I don't agree with you but thats no need to go to name calling ie: "Fucking Politician" ouch that hurt. Why do libs always resort to name calling when someone doesn't agree with their point of view ????
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 21, 2004, 11:03:00 AM
They have kids who are innocent and should not starve for their crimes? It's crazy that we have such a high infant mortality rate in this country. It speaks of greed, massive greed that is just unacceptable. Where is the kindness and human decency? Is it that essential to hoard everything for just those who worked? I am not that way. I will not make children starve for hypothetical crimes of the mothers we always hear about. All these people with nice cars on welfare. Not the norm I am sure.
Socialized heathcare, because it didn't work or isn't working in Canada(not sure not up on the facts) should we give up on that? If the first time you tried everything and it didn't work you gave up you would get nowhere.
I respect your opinions Patriot but you speak of utopian as if it were a bad thing, if someone were to lay it out for you with a guarentee would you take it?
perfect world ?
People everywhere enjoy believing things that they know are not true. It spares them the ordeal of thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for what they know.
BROOKS ATKINSON (1894-1984), Once Around The Sun, 1951.
Post by: thepatriot on April 21, 2004, 11:33:00 AM
Post by: Deborah on April 21, 2004, 01:17:00 PM
My son worked in the meat dept of a large chain health food store. He said once, "mom you couldn't work here. you'd freak out if you saw how much meat we throw out every night." The health dept will not allow them to give this food to homeless shelters.
There is plenty for everyone. The problem is those things are hard to access if you don't have money. Farmers are often PAID with our tax dollars, to not grow a crop.
Yes, you sound like a politician. You use stereotypes and make statements that perpetuate the myths put out by the government. Can't get to the truth if you don't look beyond the myths.
And why is it that people on the right always resort to this line, "Like I said if your life is so bad in the states why are you here?" I'm here because I have native american ancestors. Unless you are native, we's here before you. Now you sound like a true 'patriot'. Agree or leave.
So, you're going to stand by your statement that Medicaid pays for more than your BC/BS policy?
Kaydee, do a little research. Most people are happy with the system in Canada.
Post by: thepatriot on April 21, 2004, 02:00:00 PM
"You consider everyone having basic necessities (food, housing, medical care) Utopian? "
Ok when did I ever make THAT POINT
I also have native American ancestors, maybe not as many as you, I wouldn't know. But with that being said it does not make me or you anymore dignified or deserving to be here than anyone that was born here, so get over that.
"So, you're going to stand by your statement that Medicaid pays for more than your BC/BS policy? "
You bet I do, in Illinois it's a fact, my ex wife is on it becuase she lost her coverage after our divorce was final, she works , I pay her 23,000.00
a year in child support. But she still qualifies and pays no copayments or deductables and everything is covered, thats a better policy than mine. Also I am speaking for Illinois I cannot nor have I spoke in regards to other states.
"Kaydee, do a little research. Most people are happy with the system in Canada."
That all depends on who you talk to, but I am sure it may be a 50 50 split who knows,
"Yes, you sound like a politician. You use stereotypes and make statements that perpetuate the myths put out by the government. Can't get to the truth if you don't look beyond the myths. "
Gee that sounds familiar, did you steel that from Ted Kennedy, give me a break.
Look Deborah we just don't agree, I never said I didn't believe in health care reform and as far as your statement on basic necesities I have no Idea where that come from.
We just disagree doens't make either one of us anymore enlightened on the situation than the other. I speak for my self and My experiance , you
condescend, and patronize as if you speak for the masses, but your entitled.
[ This Message was edited by: thepatriot on 2004-04-21 11:03 ][ This Message was edited by: thepatriot on 2004-04-21 11:12 ]
Post by: Anonymous on April 21, 2004, 06:11:00 PM
Our government is in "check-mate" with our economy. There is no where to go but down from here. We have to get rid of some debt or more and more people are going to be out of work, and you can forget government handouts - not going to happen.
Get you house in order people. Your family depends on it!
Post by: kaydeejaded on April 21, 2004, 08:59:00 PM
::mecry::
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
--John Quincy Adams, Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives [July 4, 1821]
Post by: Deborah on July 16, 2004, 02:01:00 PM
And then give you a small dose of reality in terms of the working poor in the good ol US of A. Don't miss the last article in this post. Absolutely wonderful!
What is Corporate Welfare?
Corporate welfare can be defined to include two major types. First, corporate welfare includes any government spending program that provides unique benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries. That includes programs that provide direct grants to businesses, programs that provide research and other services for industries, and programs that provide subsidized loans or insurance to companies. There are more than 100 such corporate subsidy programs in the federal budget today, with annual expenditures of roughly $75 billion. For the five-year period 2000-2004, the government will spend more than $394 billion on corporate tax subsidies.
The second type of corporate welfare includes targeted corporate tax loopholes, also known as tax expenditures. The notion of tax "expenditure" refers to revenue losses due to preferential tax provisions such as special exclusions, exemptions, deductions, credits, deferrals or tax rates (source: http://www.nader.org/releases/63099.html (http://www.nader.org/releases/63099.html))
Over the last three decades, Congress has cut the tax rate for the wealthiest taxpayers by more than half. Further, in the 1980s, the U.S. tax code was rewritten to drastically reduce corporate income taxes. In the 1950s and '60s, corporate taxes provided 25 percent of all federal government revenues. By 1991, that figure was only seven percent. The theory behind the tax cuts was that corporations would take the money they saved in taxes and invest it back into their businesses. This rarely happens, however.
In 1989, Citizens for Tax Justice surveyed 44 major American companies. All 44 paid no federal taxes; this despite a collective total profit of $53.6 billion. All had reduced their capital spending and reduced their work forces. The extra money instead went for higher stock dividends, higher pay for CEOs (an average pay hike of 54 percent) and to pay for corporate mergers and acquisitions. That pattern continues today. Concrete examples of some of these tax breaks and their effects can be found in part of an investigative series by the Boston Globe, found at: http://www.corporations.org/welfare/globe3.html (http://www.corporations.org/welfare/globe3.html)
Federal corporate tax expenditures -- special exclusions, exemptions, deductions, credits, deferrals or tax rates -- totaled more than $76 billion in fiscal year 1999, according to conservative estimates by the Office of Management and Budget (sources include above, and http://www.mdle.com/WrittenWord/rholhut/holhut3.htm (http://www.mdle.com/WrittenWord/rholhut/holhut3.htm))
II. Corporate Welfare Vs. ?Social Welfare?
The figures reported above give us some basis for assessing how corporate welfare matches up with ?social? welfare?programs for the needy, such as TANF, food stamps, and the like?in terms of costs.
The nation's largest corporations and richest citizens receive more welfare money than our social welfare programs. In 1994, the United States spent $104.3 billion on corporate welfare, while spending only $14.4 billion on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC; now TANF). If we add together recent federal monies spent on AFDC/TANF, food stamps and Medicaid, it comes to about $85 billion annually. The total cost of the corporate tax breaks and subsidies is hundreds of billions of dollars.
Federal aid to corporations and wealthy individuals include bailouts, export promotions, loans, loan guarantees, debt forgiveness, below cost sales, interest free financing and other benefits. Barrett and Steele (1998) estimate that in 1998 corporate welfare cost the federal government $125 billion a year (note: estimates often vary, as these depend on exactly what one counts as corporate welfare; you will read precise definitions and estimates when you access the Boston Globe link a bit later).
In general, social welfare programs account for a small amount of the national budget. AFDC [the program prior to TANF] is less than 1% of the federal budget and, on average, no more than 2% of each state's fund. (http://www.feminist.org/other/budget/we ... elfare.htm (http://www.feminist.org/other/budget/welfare/welfare.htm))
III. Examples of Corporate Welfare
(sources: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html), http://www.citizen.org/congress/corwel/hitlist99.htm (http://www.citizen.org/congress/corwel/hitlist99.htm), and http://www.feminist.org/other/budget/we ... elfare.htm (http://www.feminist.org/other/budget/welfare/welfare.htm))
A. Direct Grants to Businesses
Texas Instruments
In 1994, Texas Instruments got a $13 million handout from the Defense Department's Technology Reinvestment Project. This money was used in research and development on "Field Emissive Displays"--part of the manufacturing of televisions and computer monitors.
Charles A. Heimbold,Jr., President & CEO, Bristol-Myers Squibb
By 1991, Bristol-Myers Squibb had been paid $32 million in taxpayer money to develop Taxol, an anti-cancer drug. Although the cost of developing the drug was already covered out of ordinary citizens' pockets, Bristol-Myers Squibb, with a monopoly on the drug, sold it at $1,320 for a monthly supply--a mark up of 6 - 8 times the drug's production cost.
Sunkist Growers
1992, Sunkist Growers received $10 million in taxpayers' money from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This money was allocated to the well-known citrus company to help advertise its products abroad.
Lockheed Martin
During fiscal year 1995, the Pentagon agreed to pay Lockheed Martin $850 million in "consolidation costs." The Pentagon also paid $100 million in bonuses to top executives of Lockheed and Martin Marietta for successfully completing the merger of the two giant military contractors.
Michael Eisner and Disney Co.
Taxpayers forked over $300,000 in 1995 to help Disney Co. put on a bigger and brighter nightly fireworks show. Through a Department of Energy program called "Cooperative Research and Development Agreements," the research took place at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Disney gets the commercial benefit of this publicly funded research, and if applicable, shares developments with the armed forces.
General Motors
From 1990 - 1994, General Motors (GM) received more than $110.6 million in federal technology subsidies as part of a program that was supposed to create jobs. GM benefitted from this program; in 1994 they netted $4.7 billion in profits. Yet during those four years, GM slashed 104,000 jobs--25% of their U.S. workers were laid off.
Perhaps the most egregious example of corporate welfare is the Agriculture Department's $100 million a year Market Access Program (formerly Market Promotion Program). Created in 1985, MAP gives taxpayer dollars to exporters of food and other agricultural products to offset the costs of their overseas advertising campaigns. Though there is an amendment offered to defund this program every year, it has somehow managed to survive.
Another example is the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program ($200 million a year), which gives research grants to consortiums of some of the nation's largest high-tech companies. Those grants allow private companies to use taxpayer dollars to help them develop and bring to market profitable new products.
B. Programs That Provide Research and Other Services for Industries
The Agriculture Department's Agricultural Research Service ($700 million a year) conducts research focused on increasing the productivity of the nation's land and water resources, improving the quality of agricultural products, and finding new uses for those products. Those activities enhance the profitability of one specific private industry, the agricultural industry.
The Energy Department's Energy Supply Research and Development Program ($2.7 billion a year) aims to develop new energy technologies and improve on existing technologies. Its activities include applied research-and-development projects and demonstration ventures in partnership with private-sector firms.
The Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ($1.9 billion a year) provides services such as mapping, charting, and weather forecasting that are beneficial to specific private industries. Furthermore, those services are already being provided by the private sector.
Subsidized Logging Roads: under the U.S. Forest Service timber program, logging companies are subsidized to build roads that allow them to cut and remove timber. Not only are taxpayers picking up the timber industry's business costs--to the tune of over $31 million a year--but these publicly financed roads are environmentally destructive, causing serious soil erosion, water pollution and disruption of wildlife. To date, there are 440,000 miles of roads built through National Forest Service lands; 95% of the new roads built in public forests are logging roads, while only 5% were for recreation and public use.
Cost to taxpayers: $31.4 million annually
C. Programs That Provide Subsidized Loans or Insurance to Businesses
The Export-Import Bank ($700 million a year) uses taxpayer dollars to provide subsidized financing to foreign purchasers of U.S. goods. Its activities include making direct loans to those buyers at below-market interest rates, guaranteeing the loans of private institutions to those buyers, and providing export credit insurance to exporters and private lenders.
Similarly, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation ($70 million a year) provides direct loans, guaranteed loans, and political risk insurance to U.S. firms that invest in developing countries.
D. Tax Expenditures
Colombia/HCA Healthcare Corporation
In April 1995, Colombia/HCA Healthcare Corporation received a $90 million tax break as a reward for locating its corporate headquarters in Nashville,TN. The Regional Medical Center in Memphis, TN used to get supplemental payments from Tennessee's Medicaid program. But in January 1993, the payments stopped and the Regional Medical Center immediately lost $42 million due to the allocation seta aside for Colombia/HCA. Health services at this public hospital have been cut and the quality of treatment has declined due to lack of funding.
Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)
?The supermarket to the world,? Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) receives several different forms of Corporate Wealthfare. A federal law requiring automobile fuel to contain 30% ethanol (a corn derivative) also grants a $.54 per gallon tax credit kickback to ethanol producers. ADM controls 60% of the ethanol markets and siphons off about $550 million a year.
If you are interested, the welfare received by Archer Daniels Midland?and other corporations?is further chronicled at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html)
E. Other Examples
Below-Market Timber Sales: U.S. Forest Service "commodity" timber sales provide timber to logging companies at below-market prices. Private timber companies end up paying only $5 per tree for timber taken from public lands. In fact, the federal timber sales program actually loses money because the amounts paid to the government by the companies buying the timber do not even cover all of the costs associated with preparing and administering the sales. The program resulted in a $111 million net loss to taxpayers in 1997 and has damaged many old growth forests and wildlife habitats. Cost to taxpayers: $111 million annually
Mining Giveaways: An archaic 1872 law allows big mining corporations to pay no royalties on the billions of dollars worth of minerals they extract from public lands; these royalties would come to an average of more than $200 million each year (based on an 8% royalty rate). Furthermore, mining companies are able to acquire public lands at only $5 an acre, paying 1872 prices for land that is today worth billions of dollars. In addition, taxpayers have been saddled with the financial burden of cleaning up the destruction left by private mining on federal lands, estimated at $32 billion to $72 billion. Legislative efforts to enact a mineral royalty and create a mine reclamation program have all been blocked in Congress. Cost to Taxpayers: $200 million annually
Oil Royalties: the Department of Interior's Mineral Management Service estimates that oil companies underpay by an estimated $66 million annually for oil extracted from public lands. Oil companies participate in an elaborate pricing scheme to undervalue the oil -- sometimes by as much as $2 per barrel from the actual market price -- to avoid paying the full royalties due. Attempts to end this situation and institute a market-based valuation program have been repeatedly thwarted in Congress. Cost to Taxpayers: $66 million annually
IV. Summaries of Recent Investigations into Corporate Welfare
For a summary of corporate welfare?what it is, assumed benefits and real costs?visit and read the information found on the following links.
Special Time Magazine report on Corporate Welfare:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/ ... over1.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/981109/cover1.html)
Part 1 of the investigative series by the Boston Globe:
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/globe2.html (http://www.corporations.org/welfare/globe2.html)
V. Final Note: The Cato Institute on Problems with Corporate Welfare for Capitalism and Democracy:
Corporate welfare programs are often purported to be pro-business. In the opinion of the Cato Institute, they are not. According to CI, such programs do nothing to promote a freer economy, but instead make it less free. Here are some reasons why the Cato Institute maintains such policies are misguided and dangerous:
1. Corporate welfare is a huge drain on the federal treasury. Every year $75 billion of taxpayer money is spent on programs that subsidize businesses.
2. Corporate welfare creates an uneven playing field. By giving selected businesses and industries special advantages, corporate subsidies put businesses and industries that are less politically well connected at a disadvantage.
3. Corporate welfare fosters an incestuous relationship between business and government. All too often, the firms and industries that contribute the most to political campaign coffers are the largest recipients of government handouts.
4. Corporate welfare programs are anti-consumer. For instance, the Commerce Department has estimated that the sugar subsidy program costs consumers several billion dollars a year in higher prices.
In summary, because they provide special treatment for politically powerful industries, special corporate tax breaks (tax expenditures) run counter to the notion that all taxpayers should be treated the same. Furthermore, targeted tax breaks create distortions in the workings of the economy; it impedes competition. Government steps in and creates an uneven playing field by granting tax breaks to particular industries. As a result, our economy's resources do not go toward their most efficient use, which makes it more difficult for America's businesses to be successful.
(http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html (http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html))
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Top 100 Corp Criminals List for the 90's
http://corporatepredators.org/top100.html (http://corporatepredators.org/top100.html)
Excerpts:
The point of the list contained in this report, The Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the Decade -- is to focus public attention on a wave of corporate criminality that has swamped prosecutors offices around the country.
This is the dark underside of the marketplace that is given little sustained attention and analysis by politicians and news outlets.
To compile The Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the 1990s, we used the most narrow and conservative of definitions -- corporations that have pled guilty or no contest to crimes and have been criminally fined.
The 100 corporate criminals fell into 14 categories of crime: Environmental (38), antitrust (20), fraud (13), campaign finance (7), food and drug (6), financial crimes (4), false statements (3), illegal exports (3), illegal boycott (1), worker death (1), bribery (1), obstruction of justice (1) public corruption (1), and tax evasion (1).
And that emerging consensus is this: corporate crime and violence inflicts far more damage on society than all street crime combined.
The FBI estimates, for example, that burglary and robbery ? street crimes -- costs the nation $3.8 billion a year. Compare this to the hundreds of billions of dollars stolen from Americans as a result of corporate and white-collar fraud.
Recite this list of corporate frauds and people will immediately say to you: but you can't compare street crime and corporate crime -- corporate crime is not violent crime. Unfortunately, corporate crime is often violent crime. The FBI estimates that, 19,000 Americans are murdered every year. Compare this to the 56,000 Americans who die every year on the job or from occupational diseases such as black lung and asbestosis and the tens of thousands of other Americans who fall victim to the silent violence of pollution, contaminated foods, hazardous consumer products, and hospital malpractice. Click on the link above to see if any of your favorites made the list.
[20 of] THE TOP 100 CORPORATE CRIMINALS OF THE 1990's
1) F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $500 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 21(1), May 24, 1999
2) Daiwa Bank Ltd.
Type of Crime: Financial
Criminal Fine: $340 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 9(3), March 4, 1996
3) BASF Aktiengesellschaft
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $225 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 21(1), May 24, 1999
4) SGL Carbon Aktiengesellschaft (SGL AG)
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $135 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 19(4), May 10, 1999
5) Exxon Corporation and Exxon Shipping
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $125 million
5 Corporate Crime Reporter 11(3), March 18, 1991
6) UCAR International, Inc.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $110 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 15(6), April 13, 1998
7) Archer Daniels Midland
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $100 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 40(1)
October 21, 1999
:cool:(tie) Banker's Trust
Type of Crime: Financial
Criminal Fine: $60 million
12 Corp Crime Reporter 11(1), March 15, 1999
9)(tie) Sears Bankruptcy Recovery Management Services
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $60 million
13 Corporate Crime Reporter 7(1), February 15, 1999
10) Haarman & Reimer Corp.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal fine: $50 million
11 Corporate Crime Reporter 5(4), February 3, 1997
11) Louisiana-Pacific Corporation
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $37 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 23(1), June 8, 1998
12) Hoechst AG
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $36 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 19(6), May 10, 1999
13) Damon Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $35.2 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 39(6), Oct 14, 1996
14) C.R. Bard Inc.
Type of Crime: Food and drug
Criminal Fine: $30.9 million
7 Corporate Crime Reporter 41(1), Oct 25, 1993
15) Genentech Inc.
Type of Crime: Food and drug
Criminal Fine: $30 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 16(3)
April 19, 1999
16) Nippon Gohsei
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $21 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 29(3), July 19, 1999
17)(tie) Pfizer Inc.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $20 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(1), July 26, 1999
17)(tie) Summitville Consolidated Mining Co.
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $20 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 20(3) May 20, 1996
19)(tie) Lucas Western Inc.
Type of Crime: False Statements
Criminal Fine: $18.5 million
9 Corporate Crime Reporter 4(6), January 30, 1995
20)(tie) Rockwell International Corporation
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $18.5 million 6 Corporate Crime Reporter 13(4), March 30, 1992
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30D.benefits.end.htm (http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30D.benefits.end.htm)
Jobless Benefits Ending for 800,000 Americans
By Jerry Gleeson The Journal News
Saturday 28 December 2002
With nearly 800,000 Americans -- including 63,000 New Yorkers -- scheduled to lose federal unemployment benefits at midnight, members of Congress pledged new action to restore the payments for an additional 13 weeks.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
7 Nov 2001
In this time of national crisis, amid calls for sacrifice, I'm truly troubled by some of the choices of the Republican party leadership. Here's their idea of an economic stimulus package:
$1.4 billion for IBM
$833 million for General Motors
$671 million for General Electric $572 million for Chevron Texaco
$254 million for Enron
This is war profiteering, and it's simply wrong. Yet the House has just approved it, on a virtual party line vote, ending the recent spirit of bipartisan cooperation in Congress.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://money.cnn.com/2001/12/07/economy/economy/ (http://money.cnn.com/2001/12/07/economy/economy/)
December 7, 2001: 11:20 a.m. ET
Employers cut 331,000 jobs in November; jobless rate rises to 5.7%.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. unemployment rate jumped to 5.7 percent in November - the highest in six years - as employers cut hundreds of thousands more jobs in response to the first recession in a decade in the world's largest economy.
The Labor Department said employers cut 331,000 jobs from non-farm payrolls last month after a revised loss of 468,000 jobs in October. The unemployment rate rose from 5.4 percent. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast unemployment at 5.6 percent and job cuts of 201,000.
The combined October-November job cuts are the most since May-June of 1980, and the unemployment rate is at its highest level since August 1995.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/stat ... able04.php (http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/populartables/table04.php)
2001 US Population: 284,796,887
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/pove ... v01hi.html (http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty01/pov01hi.html)
In 2001 there were 32.9 Million US citizens who lived below the poverty threshold, 1.3 million higher than the 31.6 million poor in 2000
In 2001, there were 6.8 million poor families (9.2 percent), up from 6.4 million (8.7 percent) in 2000
http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/0320 ... 13_001.htm (http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032002/pov/new13_001.htm)
Reasons for not working for those who Did Not Work
Total...66,534,000 Ill/Disabled- 11,132,000 Retired-30,341,000 Home/Family Reasons-12,797,000 Work Unavailable-1,201,000 School/Other-11,063,000
For those who Worked But Spent Time Outside the Workforce
Total?26,911,000 Ill/Disabled-2,766,000 Retired-2,169,000 Home/Family Reasons-6,063,000 Work Unavailable-2,047,000 School/Other-13,866,000
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.htm (http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.htm) How The Census Bureau Measures Poverty
Example: Suppose Family A consists of five people: two children, their mother, father, and great-aunt. Family A's poverty threshold in 2001 was $21,665. Suppose also that each member had the following income in 2001:
Mother $10,000
Father 5,000
Great-aunt 10,000
First child 0
Second child 0
Total: $25,000
Since their total family income, $25,000 was greater than their threshold ($21,665), the family would not be considered "poor" according to the official poverty measure.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
PRESS BRIEFING ON 2001 INCOME AND POVERTY ESTIMATES (Excerpts)
Dr. Daniel H. Weinberg
Chief, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division
U.S. Census Bureau
September 24, 2002
Good morning. I'm Dan Weinberg, Chief of the Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division at the Census Bureau. I am pleased to welcome you to the press briefing on the 2001 income and poverty estimates. Your press packets contain a press release, a copy of my remarks, a copy of the charts I will be using today, and the two reports we are releasing. You can obtain additional unpublished detailed tables from the Census Bureau directly or on our web site (www.census.gov (http://www.census.gov)).
Let me first summarize the main findings. I will be discussing three major well-being indicators today. They are income, poverty, and income inequality. Chart 1d
Median household income in 2001 fell 2.2 percent or $900 from the 2000 level, to $42,200 (that is, half of all households had incomes above $42,200 and half below).
After falling for four consecutive years, the poverty rate rose, from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 11.7 percent in 2001. The number of poor increased also, by 1.3 million people, to 32.9 million poor in 2001.
The picture on household income inequality is mixed, but the most widely used measure, the Gini index, indicates that inequality did not change from 2000 to 2001. Other measures, such as the share of the lowest household income quintile, indicate some increase in inequality.
http://nch.ari.net/numbers.html (http://nch.ari.net/numbers.html)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://nch.ari.net/jobs.html (http://nch.ari.net/jobs.html)
Nat'l Coalition for the Homeless
The connection between impoverished workers and homelessness can be seen in homeless shelters, many of which house significant numbers of full-time wage earners. A survey of 30 U.S. cities found that almost one in five homeless persons is employed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1998). In a number of cities not surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors - as well as in many states - the percentage is even higher (National Coalition for the Homeless, 1997).
The future of job growth does not appear promising for many workers: a 1998 study estimated that 46% of the jobs with the most growth between 1994 and 2005 pay less than $16,000 a year; these jobs will not lift families out of poverty (National Priorities Project, 1998).2 Moreover, 74% of these jobs pay below a livable wage ($32,185 for a family of four).
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/us_mayor_n ... meless.asp (http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/us_mayor_newspaper/documents/12_17_01/hunger_homeless.asp)
The US Conference of Mayors 17th Annual Conference Survey of Hunger, Homelessness Documents Increase in Current Demands
Excerpts:
Low-paying jobs lead the list of causes of hunger identified by the city officials. Other causes cited, in order of frequency, include unemployment and other employment-related problems, high housing costs, changes in the food stamp programs, poverty or lack of income, economic downturn or weakening of the economy, utility costs, welfare reform, medical or health costs, and mental health problems.
Thirty-eight percent of eligible low income households are currently served by assisted housing programs. City officials estimate that low income households spend an average of 44 percent of their income on housing.
Applicants must wait an average of 16 months for public housing in the survey cities. The wait for Section 8 Certificates is 20 months, for Section 8 Vouchers, 22 months.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Journalist Barbara Ehrenreich, author of "Nickled and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America" reveals much about the working poor in the US
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/ ... click=true (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/21/1023864491384.html?oneclick=true)
Barbara Ehrenreich is an American essayist, social commentator and author of 11 books. Her project is more subtle, and more searching, than her predecessors'; she has sought not to describe the depths of poverty but what is termed "the working poor". Nearly one-third of the American workforce earns $US7-$8 ($12-$14) an hour. Ehrenreich set out to see what kind of life these people enjoy.
They don't enjoy it - they endure it. "No-one has ever said that you could work hard - harder even than you ever thought possible - and still find yourself sinking ever deeper into poverty and debt," she writes near the end of this meticulously researched and intelligently written book that should be pressed into the hands of those policy-makers with unblinking faith in the trickle-down theory of economics.
http://ethics.emory.edu/news/archives/000116.html (http://ethics.emory.edu/news/archives/000116.html)
The fact is that most employees in low-paid service jobs cannot afford to support themselves, let alone a family, on seven or eight dollars an hour.
For example, to be deemed affordable, rents usually need to be at 30% of one?s income. But as Ehrenereich notes, housing analysts report that 59% of poor renters, or 4.4 million households, spend more than 50% of their income on housing.<2> As ?Barbara? quickly found out, without the first month?s rent, it?s extremely difficult to secure a ?legitimate apartment.? Budget hotels become the primary option. Even with two jobs amounting to $320 dollars a week, the $179 budget hotel took 55% of her income. Ehrenreich then turned to aid agencies whose lists, she discovered, are already out of date. The agency finally suggested she move into a shelter until she could save enough money. Ehrenreich writes, ?our bright blue vests bear the statement ?At Wal-Mart, our people make the difference.? Underneath those vests, though, there are real-life charity cases, maybe even shelter dwellers.?
Post by: thepatriot on July 16, 2004, 02:37:00 PM
_________________
Sarasota Straight Escapee
Post by: thepatriot on July 16, 2004, 02:44:00 PM
Post by: thepatriot on July 16, 2004, 02:46:00 PM
"Top 100 Corp Criminals List for the 90's "
that would be under your BOY CLINTON's watch, don't see ya givin too if any to Clinton bashing come on now lets keep it fare and balanced.. :lol: :lol: :lol:
_________________
Sarasota Straight Escapee
Post by: Deborah on July 16, 2004, 05:06:00 PM
Not everything I posted was from "liberal media". Got another excuse to disregard it? You do a good deal of cutting and pasteing yourself. One man's truth is another's bullshit.
Y-OUR = yours and ours.
Re:Clinton What I have said is that my economic reality was some better under him, and that there were many other things to spend
Y-OUR tax dollars investigating him for than fiddling around with an intern. That don't make him 'my man'- just the lessor of two evils.
As for the subtitle- wasn't mine, didn't bother to change it- rarely do.
The point was to compare social and corp welfare and look at the unpleasant reality of the working poor. You apparently have nothing to share on the issue.
Post by: thepatriot on July 16, 2004, 05:35:00 PM
_________________
Sarasota Straight Escapee
Post by: Deborah on July 16, 2004, 05:52:00 PM
When you say 'we' who exactly are you speaking for?
And talking about the pot calling the kettle black- You've written your share of foul and rank comments. I fail to see any difference. Just who they're aimed at. You are not the poster boy for social etiquette.
Do you have some kind of sexual fetish with rods?
Post by: thepatriot on July 16, 2004, 07:21:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on July 16, 2004, 10:06:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on July 17, 2004, 09:36:00 AM
Quote
On 2004-07-16 14:35:00, thepatriot wrote:
"Ok Deb I have had a bad day and I guess you are the first for me to fire on, better you than a loved one. Look you need to get over you arrogance and bitchieness. I don't know what your story is but I have heard from some you may be a Parent who put there kid on a program that is now on a self imposed guilt trip over it. If thats the case good! you should be, but don't take it out on the rest here we don't want to hear that shit even from a former program parent. Why can't you ever have dialouge with anybody without throwing stones Jesus we all have different opinions and you can't ahndle it when someone disagrees with you. I am not the only one that feels this way I have had several pm's from people asking why you are so goddam uptight. Get over your self imposed guilt trip and punish yourself on your own time.and pull the fucking 8 foot rod out of your ass that is impaleing your brain..Thankyou
_________________
Sarasota Straight Escapee[ This Message was edited by: thepatriot on 2004-07-16 14:36 ]"
Post by: thepatriot on July 17, 2004, 09:52:00 AM
Ahh so you are a program parent....figures it shows in your bitterness
Post by: kpickle39 on July 17, 2004, 08:18:00 PM
Post by: Cayo Hueso on July 17, 2004, 09:26:00 PM
I have no idea....just what I was told.
Karate is a form of martial arts in which people who have had years and years of training can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of the world.
-- Dave Barry
Post by: Deborah on July 17, 2004, 10:15:00 PM
You're jumping to conclusions.
Both my sons were sent to programs by their father. I lost my home and savings fighting him. I don't think that qualifies me as a 'program parent' by any stretch of the imagination.
I've been posting at Fornits for 2 or 3 years, taking every opportunity to expose this industry for what it is. You obviously didn't look too hard.
Post by: Anonymous on August 17, 2005, 12:23:00 PM
Talk sense to a fool and he'll call you foolish.
- Euripides