Obama Is Not Politically Smart

It certainly is an interesting week...watching every word, every move analyzed to death.

Well said Lori very said

Thanks Carol.

Melinda I would say there are probably more independants here than anything. And the split of dem and repubs about equal. My point is there are very few threads that praise McCain...most of the McCain supporters do threads critisizing Obama.

Sue analized to death about sums it up.

Yes Regan was a movie star and so was Arnold. Regardless of our previous career choices America seems to lead the way in opportunities for the inexperienced.

The problem with ALL of the politicians is that they can HOPE with the best intentions, they can write and outline all of the problematic areas and aspire to change them, but they do NOT have the power to change laws, enforce new bills. It's a lengthy process and has to be approached with caution as well as approved by congress.

So all of these large overhauls Obama and billhiary promised are great, but they are just ideas, their hearts are in the right place (You recall the old saying, "that will take an act of congress" - it is not just a saying.) but the money and the approval from congress has not yet been reached. You have to think small, because of our financial situation, Obama, nor McCain are NOT going to save us, we will NOT see immediate improvement as quickly as we believe we will. Just watch with caution Lori, I am a moonbat all the way but I am not ignorant of the promises that any man or woman running for any political position promises.

When it comes to laws, all things take time, and the lobbyist are ever ready to trade the good for the greedy on all sides..

Well Mel since Congress is democratically controlled and Obama is a democrat I would say we would see more than just "hope" maybe even action and getting something accomplished.

I mean I know declaring National Peeps day was important but....

As for Arnold yes he is governator of CA but he can never run for president.

I think it's time for some fresh blood and a new approach. I like Obama for that reason. I appreciate his "inexperience" because it will allow him to see things differently do things differently. I am in line with most of Hillary's policy positions. The reason I didn't vote for her was that she was too "experienced". Too into the Washington culture and politics as usual.

President Reagan was a simple yet sophisticated individual--all at once. That is what made him so able to sympathize with the general public yet thoughtful and intelligent enough to make wise decisions efficiently. It's not Obama's movie-star-like popularity that bothers me (and I doubt that bothers many people at all). It's his UNEARNED movie-star-like popularity that bothers me. Reagan earned his popularity by gaining skill and accomplishing something that there is a market for. Obama just wrote crappy books with the arrogant sense that he is entitled to inspire others--it seems that inspiring people is more for his ego than for others. If you want to read a real touching biography of a black man who struggled to become great (but never describes himself as great because he is so humble), read Clarence Thomas's memoir "My Grandfather's Son."

TJ this has nothing to do with a book written by anyone.

I dont see how you think Obama doesnt deserve his popularity.

Does McCain deserve to be labeled a war hero just because he was a POW?

You are the perfect example of what this thread is about...you feel the only way to bring McCain up is to bring Obama down.

Josephy my fellow Iowan....cough cough cough...sorry hairball.

Yep he is new and fresh and Michelle is a refreshing change also.

I think Joseph summed up my feelings as well. I am hoping that his "inexperience" will actually benefit him and us in that he can see things a little differently. We need a new approach. IF he gets elected, will he be a great President? Only time will tell.

I know this sounds awfully cynical but not surprising given my cynical nature but I have adopted this approach: Obama? Why not give him a shot? He can't possibly mess things up any worse than the pinhead in chief we've had for the past eight years. And he may just pull it off and nudge this country back towards what it once was.

What's funny is that the rare Bush supporter will come out and say that Bush didn't create this mess alone and yet will then say that they are afraid of how badly Obama would do things. So Bush had help screwing up the nation but Obama would be alone in his administration? No advisors? No Congress to deal with?

Hmmm. Interesting.

no matter who is elected...Obama or McCain...we can only do better than what we have now.

Yup.

Thanks Nick...and as much as it behooves me I also agree with Josephy but dont quote me on that:)

Yeppers Josephy and Nick.

I wrote a great comment that Gather took but did nothing with. Great.

Basically...to sum it up:

Obama speaks of principles he does not understand. Hope is about faith in God, not in self. Audacity is about doing the unpopular, not the popular. Change is about doing differently, not wanting differently. That is why he does not deserve his celebrity status. He has not offered us anything but rhetoric; he has no marketable skill.

Hi TJ - and McCain offers what?

TJ and you are entitled to your opinion but I dont see what you base it on.

No marketable skills...damn worthless law degree anyway.

I totally agree, Lori.

What is so ironic is that Obama's "star" status only came about when he started running for president, and it is his heavily humanitarian platform that earned this vast popularity. It's not as if he was a movie star, rock star or millionaire playboy before the primaries. A year ago, he was just a junior senator from Illinois.

I think the McCain campaign totally shows their own awareness of their weaknesses in the fact that the majority of their ads are attack ads. What few pro-John ads they play are mostly biographical and show no substance or detail for the political landscape he would create; except for staying in Iraq and keeping the Bush tax cuts in place.

I'm glad Obama chose Biden (although I'd have preferred it if he had chosen Hillary), but Obama and Biden can be a good team; a team where both work out in front, and not with one, or both, operating behind dark curtains.

Bill Clinton made an excellent point last night. Well, he made several, but the one that I think fits here is this: (paraphrased, because I don't have the transcript) "John McCain embraces the Republican philosophy that we didn't see fully until 2001, when they had total power. We've seen how they destroyed everything when they have total power and in spite of this, John McCain still embraces that philosophy. Thanks, but no thanks."

In contrast, he called Barack Obama the reincarnation of the American Dream.

Okay, I loved Bill Clinton's speech. Another great point: "The world is more impressed when we are the power of example than they are when we are an example of power."

Barack Obama has absolutely "earned" his status, which I don't consider celebrity. I consider it honored, appreciated, trusted, and liked. I'm sad for people who do not have the experience to feel these things for him.

Bill yep. I read somewhere that an independent group had done a study off all the political ads and of McCains 7 out of 10 contained lies and the other 3 were attack ads.

Sandy I second that.

We have to remember folks that JFK had no experience either.

People seem to forget that.

I get the same feeling from this campaign that I did when I was very young and Kennedy ran for office. The country was energized. The stasis of the Cold War was broken and people were willing to take back and rebuild our country.

Kennedy took us to the moon.

Obama will take us forward in a way we never thought possible.

Also remember, we need to make sure we maintain a majority in the house and in the Senate.

If we have both houses and the President there is not limit to what we can do.

After all, didn't JFK take us to the moon?

Sharon I wasnt born yet when Kennedy was pres but I would imagine that if he were alive today he would be one of Obamas biggest supporters.

Yep he did take us to the moon.

Obama is the first president since Kennedy that truly will be the peoples president.

Clinton was close to being the peoples pres. I look for more out of Obama than Clinton I did Bill.

Everyone acts like Obama is going to lead us into the holy land. Everything will come up roses when he is president. Niether candidate can perform miracles. I don't like either candidate. McCain could possibly pass a background check for top secret clearance....not that is necessary for the most important job in the country. I was a cook in the military and had to pass a background check.....but not the president.

Here's the actual quote: "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power."

Reagan was always a movie star. He was the worst governor of CA in my lifetime. Made Jerry Brown look like a giant, made Pete Wilson appear to have normal intelligence.

Reagan had a genius for seeming like a real person. He was about as real as Mickey Mouse but he had an innate ability to win people's confidence. Early in his career he had trouble speaking off the cuff. He had a lot of problems with press conferences when he was governor. Reporters could make him angry. By the time he became president he'd improved his public persona.

Paula, it's interesting that you say this: "Everyone acts like Obama is going to lead us into the holy land." Why would you say holy land instead of promised land? He is actually promising to do his best to deliver what we have been promised by our citizenship.

We agree on the Reagan points. I not only felt he was a movie star who swayed many to love him but they either did not care or needed an actor to make them feel good about themselves. As I watched folks go goo goo about Reagan with many feeling he was outstanding it forces me to look at Obama through similar eyes. The difference with Obama is he did not come from years of hob knobbing with only deep pocketed folks. He hasn't spent years ignoring the plight of those who are not filthy rich and he certainly does not turn his nose up at minorities and their plight. Reagan, to me and millions others was a wasted experience in showman ship.No a president. He ushered in this disdainful era of in your face politics and removal of any level of decency in political discourse. He helped the growth of many political pundits who so easily took partial truths and repeated it often enough to make it the gospel to those so inclined. He perfected the stand up to the public and tell them a damn lie procedure formerly done by others. He was the epitome of political bullshit while being aware that illegal crap was going on in the white house basement even when it was tunr down by congress. He had little respect for the wishes of the electorate or their representatives and let the world know unless you were so engrossed in his shady mentality you were blinded by it.

Those who matured under this low life methodology of Reagan simply carried it on with Bush and wallowed in its stench. Now those same people who do not see the same in Obama are searching for some way, any way to stop the awakening of the Obama train by telling themselves he is not ready to lead. He is full of hot air. No,Reagan and his minions were full of hot air and they puffed so much they filled GWB with the same crap.
Those standing before a mirror can see the balloon deflating and worry that sanity just might return to politics and government. All the damn lies told about smaller government and fiscal responsibility may be coming to an end. The historic debt and huge deficits might just come center stage and be viewed for the reality it has been under with such sick leadership. The total irresponsibility just might be coming center stage again and all those lies show their face. Obama, not politically smart? No, he doesn't need to be. No matter how low life one is and how criminally apt one is their crap comes to light at some point and its showing now. The American people have been screwed enough by those who have lead the past damn near 8 years. Institutions who have bebefited with the leadership are now scrambling for all the help they can get. Hopefully soon the bailouts will be switched to the people paying taxes. They are the ones who deserve more of the benefits. The immorality of the way credit was abused by the industry and the way other industries benefited by feeding the voracious uncaring greed and hunger has seriously harmed the housing industry. It has harmed every major facet of our measurable fiscal areas and someone says Obama is not politically smart? No all he needs do is show the American people he is against what we have suffered under for eight years and he'll gain momentum like a run away freight train.

Lori, I hope you won't mind if I drop an unrelated comment here. I don't want to write an entire article on the topic and haven't seen anyone else address this. I loved John Kerry's speech last night.

"He has not offered us anything but rhetoric; he has no marketable skill."

BWAA HAHAHAhahahaaa! Okie Dokie then! :P

The text of the Clinton Speech:
"But on the two great questions of this election -- how to rebuild the American dream and how to restore America's leadership in the world -- he still embraces the extreme philosophy that has defined his party for more than 25 years. And it is, to be fair to all the Americans who aren't as hard- core Democrats as we, it's a philosophy the American people never actually had a chance to see in action fully until 2001, when the Republicans finally gained control of both the White House and the Congress.

Then we saw what would happen to America if the policies they had talked about for decades actually were implemented. And look what happened.

They took us from record surpluses to an exploding debt; from over 22 million new jobs to just 5 million; from increasing working families' incomes to nearly $7,500 a year to a decline of more than $2,000 a year; from almost 8 million Americans lifted out of poverty to more than 5.5 million driven into poverty; and millions more losing their health insurance.

Now, in spite of all this evidence, their candidate is actually promising more of the same."

Excellent citation, Sandy!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Thanks, Lori. You are correct in this and Obama is refreshing.

Damn, Spencer. Nice summation of the Reagan years. He was what Calvin Coolidge should have been. Both presided over eras of unbridled greed and government corruption. Neither was held responsible for anything.

I was a cook in the military and had to pass a background check.....but not the president.
paula M., Aug 28, 2008, 11:56am

Umm yes he did have to go through FBI screening and background check.

Sandy say anything you want here.


Doyle yes that was pretty much my reaction too.

Spencer I love and agree with you opinions almost all of the time...and you express them very well.

Nippy of the Katz I am surprised that the actor Reagan wasnt more popular he was good at pretending. But I guess he entered politics instead.

Thanks Brian.

Nippy I like comment stalking Spencer:)

Sigh. Can't wait until this is all over and done with. And I sure hope it's McCain in the White House.

Marilyn it will be over soon...get ready for President Obama.

People LUV Obama's rhetoric - that's all it is - NO substance! - these definitions are appropriate here:
rhet·o·ric n
1. speech or writing that communicates its point persuasively
2. complex or elaborate language that only succeeds in sounding pretentious
3. fine-sounding but insincere or empty language
4. the ability to use language effectively, especially to persuade or influence people
5. the study of methods employed to write or speak effectively and persuasively
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation.

Are people's lives so miserable that they accept the hollow words of Obama? Are they only waiting for more handouts?

No one talks the Universal Health Care (UHC) another entitlement program which will be full of fraud and no substance. The govt. started the HMO's & PPO's! We should ask ourselves - WHY..

It was to control the health industry and squash free enterprise. Docs MUST join or members cannot see them. They MUST accept the dismal fee schedule as well.

With MANDATED (just hate that word) UHC, quality will go out the window. They will mandate poisonous vaccines for EVERYONE. NY is trying to pass a bill to make it mandatory for children.

These vaccines prevent nothing; they cause other, more chronic conditions so docs will have to write scripts to support big pharma even more! MMR causes Autism (proof no one will talk about much in U.S. - and our govt. protects big pharma -NO LAWSUITS OF DRUG COMPANIES ALLOWED!) HepB causes Diabetes. Now, has anyone done any research on vaccines?

IF you did, you would NEVER get another vaccine nor allow your precious children to get them - BTW, that includes the flu shot which they now lace with cancerous contents. And Guardasil is yet another poision for our young women - no pre-testing done - proof of horrendous side effects, including sterility!

If you want the truth, talk to a doctor who DOES NOT give vaccines - they will show you the proof. Others only listen to their drug reps and drug companies - no research on their own.

Same with amalgams (contain mercury). Talk to a dentist who ONLY uses RESIN for the truth.

So, if you LUV Obama, get ready...the writing is on the wall. Hold on tight to your wallet!!!

BTW, I don't like McCain but he's not pushing an annual 300 million dollar health plan down our throats.

I can agree with you on one part of that Marilyn. I too am really anxious for this to be over and done with. McCain in the White House, well, not so much.

But hey, it's one of those nifty things that makes America great. We all get to vote for whom we believe to be the best candidate! : )

Thanks Linda! Now I don't have to look up rhetoric.

BIg wOrDs mAkE BrAin HuRt....

I'd gladly open my wallet if it will make Linda go away.

Spencer, that was an awesome rant.
Your description of Reagan fits my view of him exactly.

Wishful thinking Sandy.

So, if you LUV Obama, get ready...the writing is on the wall. Hold on tight to your wallet!!!

No need. bush already made off with my wallet.

You are absolutely right, Spencer. Reagan was charming and his rhetoric gave us hope, but his heart was with big business, just as McCain's is.

McCain is an old fogey who has only one asset - his long years as a POW. He used to be a maverick who seemed more Democrat than Republican, but he abandoned his ideals in favor of getting in good with the right wing Republicans to have a better chance of winning the election. We actually know very little about McCain. His education at Annapolis made him a Navy officer but his experience as a fighter pilot and POW don't make him as qualified Obama who got a degree in Political Science before he made top honors at Harvard Law School. Obama's experience is much more valuable as a president than McCain's.
Don't believe it that Obama is not a good politician. Don't forget his political experience was in Chicago. He saw how politics worked and decided to try to change to more positive, and cleaner methods of campaigning. But if he has to come on stronger in rebutting the lies in McCain's TV ads, he knows how to tear McCain down. He prefers to refrain from negative campaigning. Obama is the more honorable man of the two candidates these days, but he knows he has to be pragmatic and compromise to get legislation passed.

I have read some very interesting comments here. Most have been well thought out and although they contain personal points of view, the arguments have been well presented.

Except this statement from TJ Thompson (this statement in particular),"Hope is about faith in God, not in self."

Excuse me? If your statement is accurate TJ...only those who believe in the existence of a god can have hope. This is not a logically sound pronouncement or authoritative statement.

In fact...this statement is not accurate either.."Audacity is about doing the unpopular, not the popular. Audacity has nothing to do with popular or unpopular. Audacity is boldness or daring....possessing nerves or fortitude. One can perform an act that is both audacious and popular. Again TJ you have posted a statement that is not logically sound..

The truth is that the WORLD is rooting for Obama. We may have a few skeptics here in the US, who know not how to dream of a better future, but the world at large sees Obama's point. We may have a few die hard conformists who are unwilling to take a chance, but life itself is a big risk, and none of us knows when our time of trying for success is over. This election isn't any riskier than any other new things we try out, because we already the alternative, same old same old. Sometimes you just have to step out of fear and walk into the unknown, like Lewis & Clark and other explorers & inventors. They write people like that off as idiots & dreamers, but look how far we have come with the help of a few people who dared to TRY.

Good article, Lori.

Mel wrote "but they do NOT have the power to change laws, enforce new bills. It's a lengthy process and has to be approached with caution as well as approved by congress. "

I'd say that comment could be disproved just by looking at Bush's record over the past 8 years. Nothing was approached with caution, they had a plan prior to their coming into the WH to declare war on Iraq and invade. Bush has exponentially increased the number of signing statements he has issued during his tenure as president. I think that there is quite a LOT a president can do. I prefer one who is actually a leader and one who will bring people together towards consensus, not a divider who will continue to destroy this country.

Great comment, Rosa! The world view is important, at least to those of us who consider that the world outside the US is good for a few things other than imposing our views and dropping bombs.

It's interesting to me how people who profess "faith" can be so reluctant to see hope and improvement when it is right in front of them.

"Reagan earned his popularity by gaining skill and accomplishing something that there is a market for. "

TJ - I would urge you to do some research on that one. Many people of that era who were directly involved in the Reagan administration have been honest about the fact that the man was a very good speaker, but not much more. And did not have the skills, nor the knowledge to lead a country. He was an excellent salesman, though, and delivered the messages of the people behind the scenes who wanted to re-direct the country away from the poor and supporting the rich.

OMG - Linda's post is so full of wrong and untrue statements I wouldn't know where to begin. Where do people get these "facts" that they think are real and true? The government started HMO's? HMO's are private - they are corporations with stock issued to private citizens - they run on profits, just as the non-HMO health care providers do. WTH?

Sheryl, what do we do when a number of people hit every article with "wrong and untrue" statements like Linda's? It would be a full time job for anyone to follow them around and correct the misinformation. It would irresponsible to leave the information uncontested.

"It would be a full time job for anyone to follow them around and correct the misinformation. It would irresponsible to leave the information uncontested. "

I don't know if we can be personally responsible for so many people's education. And, there's always the problem that once they reach an adult age, they just don't want to know that what they think they know is actually false, Sandy.

So what qualifies a person to be president? What qualifications did actor Reagan have to be president? Was it paying off Iran to hold the hostages until afster the election? For that matter what qualifications did Reagan have to be governor of CA?

This qualified rhetoric we hear from the republican party is just more poor campaigning because they have no agenda except more of the same old, same old Bush failed neocon rule.

Obama apparently has not lost his moral or civil values when he decided to run for the senate or he would have been just another go along and voted for the war. Kucinich did not vote for the war either.

Obama is not a know-it-all typoe person and will put in place cabinet members that have good experience to do their jobs, people that are not on the take like the Bush regime.

The democrats are going to pick up a lot of seats in congress and it will finally give the American public a chance to recover from the repression of the Bush regime.

Let's hope so Jack.

*And I'm a registered Independent!* : )

Give me a man (or woman) who thinks. If you start there, all else is possible.

Some think it may not be the end of the world if they elect McCain.
Even 4 years more of the same would be much worse.
This is a superficial view of the world politics and global economics.
If you do not realize how precarious the situation is and how bad it will be if the republicans stay in the white house, you are not fully aware of what is happening to this country.
McCain is a puppet just like Bush, he has to be told everything ahead and sometime he forgets.
No economic plan, no new energy plan, just rethoric no substance.

Linda, you are an agent of confusion, instead of making it clear what your position is since you attack everything.
First thing first, get the republicans out of the white house, then we can make the other changes you are talking about.
We have no idea what plan for health insurance will be approved by all of us, I think we should vote on the plan.
I really think you should bring solutions and not problems, we are all aware of the problems.
Obama is the best choice for president and you should try to stay on topic.
This long winded comments do not increase you credibility but undermine it.

I leave for a couple of hours and come back to Linda...wow is she a conspiracy theorist or what.

Everybody else great comments.

Sandy I would open my wallet and ask my neighbors to open their wallets if it would make Linda go away too:)

A 10 for you.

We all should agree to disagree, the trouble is the right can't debate. All they can seem to do is follow McCain's dirty campaigning.

Linda A wrote -- "The govt. started the HMO's & PPO's! We should ask ourselves - WHY.."

I see that several people are skeptical about this, so I wanted to share that I have heard this too. If memory serves me correctly this item was pointed out in Michael Moore's film "Sicko." The government, under Richard Nixon, changed the government's rules and regulations over insurance companies so that HMOs and PPOs could be created.

There was, supposedly, much greedy grinning over the fact that HMOs would be able to charge prices for limiting people's access to actual care; which means the companies could keep more of the money insureds pay in, by reducing the amount of actual healthcare that people could receive.

Nick, McCain offers a comprehension of foreign policy and the resolve to defeat the terrorists instead of bargaining with them.

Lori, when you post an article, you imply that you DO want to hear others' opinions on the issue--which includes how they arrived at their opinion. If you don't want that those types of comments, publish this to be visible only with those who agree with you--that will save you the trouble of having to think about other points of view. And if Obama understood the law, he would be an originalist, a strict-constructionist. His comprehension of constitutional law is very elementary, below what is taught in AP US Government even.

Michael, having hope in your own ability and nothing more is called arrogance. I would really like liberals to make a decision whether or not their scientific "consensuses" require faith, and whether liberals rely on faith. If liberals do not rely on faith, as they claim, then they cannot claim hope either. Hope and faith are a pair; they are not divisible. We use the word "hope" too loosely in everyday jargon. "I hope I get to the theatre on time, I hope the store is still open, I hope the restaurant has carryout, etc." In that loose and stretched form of hope, yes, it is possible in atheism, but hope in its purest meaning require faith in a Supreme Being. As for audacity, you don't need boldness, daring, nerves, and fortitude to do something popular to the public and to your peers. It doesn't take boldness or daring to drink in college, and it doesn't take nerves or fortitude to have premarital sex. These are popular things to do, and so it doesn't take any audacity to face them. It takes audacity NOT to drink in college and to remain abstinent until marriage; these are choices that are ridiculed by the media and by one's peers. So I really don't understand your assertion that audacity has nothing to do with the popularity of the stance or the position--if I am doing something completely in the norm, I am not being audacious at all; I am being typical.

Sheryl, how old were you during the 80s, and what kind of economic circumstance were you in? (Those are rhetorical questions, of course.) I ask this because my father was struggling through most of his decade-long quest to get his bachelor's degree because he had to work full-time to make ends meet. He finally got his degree right around the time Reagan left office, but during the time that Reagan was president, my dad says that his disposable income increased dramatically and he could afford more than just the basics; he had some extra cash flow left over to use for a few luxuries here and there. His interest rates went down many fold, and even with the money he saved on his car payment (because refinanced post-Carter) he had quite a bit more funds. He was by no means "rich," nor is he now. I am from a middle-class family, and he was from a middle-low-class family. He was financing his own education entirely, so his economic standing could probably have been described as "poor." Still, Reaganomics made a huge difference for him, as well as many others, I am sure. Revisionist history always seems to attack the real heroes in our country, at least from the Cold War on. Reagan was a smart man who understood the basic economic principles necessary to help the American public. I am sure it had some adverse affects on some demographics, but no economic policy will be beneficial for all the people all the time. I think it is unfair for you to claim that Reagan was an ignorant man just because he didn't rid the country of poverty. I haven't seen a Democrat accomplish that yet, and that is because it is not going to happen--we will not be able to accomplish it. You see, once the lowest class gets elevated to higher economic standing, those left behind become the new lowest class. It's all relative. In many countries, even those living on the sreet in the US have coveted lifestyles. Our "impoverished" here are actually doing quite well in comparison to the third world. You can thank Reagan for a lot of that.

Another great post, TJ and enjoy the insight of like-minded people.

And to some others posting: Sorry guys, unlike Politicians, I cannot be bought.

That poor attitude is exactly what is wrong with America today; like I was myself, most Americans are completely oblivious to the details of the terrible deception and corruption within our very own government.

My intent is to share some of the incredible facts that I learned. If you choose to ignore them rather than seeking the truth, then you remain a part of the problem.

Our country's only hope is that even people just like you, in complete denial, eventually wake up.

You probably won't believe it until you take the time to do the research yourself; denial is much easier than learning.

Bill's Spirit - thanks for giving them a history lesson. I worked in the healthcare industry for many years for an HMO & PPO. They are indeed private corporations and lobby extremely well. Surely you don't believe the govt. would start something w/o putting like-minded people at the forefront.

I am so happy to be out of that industry because it was always about the money, never the member or their health. Policies and rules to save money, regardless of what the physician ordered. Pre-authorizations for ALL major services. I serviced over 1000 providers over seven counties; initial education of those policies, and then had to keep them in line. The company deliberately processed and under-paid claims incorrectly, and until the provider squawked to me (their rep) they were unchanged. They'd go, "whoops", a system error. Then they constantly changed the rules and decreased the fee schedule. So, a doc's charge for an office visit could be $65 and we'd pay (according to the CPT code and the fee schedule) about $9.

We initiated a "Friday Fax" which would go to all providers offices every Friday. Anything new or changed, we would put in the fax. Well, the company said they would no longer cover Lipitor and then named some generic satins they could prescribe. Well, makers of Lipitor sued (as all healthcare networks make private deals with drug companies on pricing) us so we had to keep it in the Formulary. However, they NEVER notified the docs it was still covered. They saved hundreds of thousands of dollars at the member's expense. The top two expenditures of any healthcare network are drugs and mental health care. Surprised by that fact? Perhaps you can understand why I had a knot in my stomach most days.

With a renewed understanding that people are the assets and human life value is what is important to me, not the money earned to promote the opposite, I left the industry. People who feel that way and stay in their job just for the money, are missing their greatest opportunity to utilize their unique ability and possibly even discover their sole purpose in life.

Leaving the industry gave me plenty of time for reading and research. I know much more than I ever wanted to know about what has been happening over the last few decades. This is why I say, one political party is no different than the next; one candidate is no better than the other.

I would love to believe Obama but I heard the same things from Bush in 2000. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

It is so easy to dismiss unfamiliar information as "conspiracy"; do so at your own peril. So sometimes I feel line the Lone Ranger; however, my goal is to plant a seed of doubt to encourage your additional research. Sorry if you feel threatened or challenged - some things are true whether you believe them or not.

The solutions come from within each and every one of us based on our knowledge, life experiences, and perceptions. When we are challenged we should be able to come up with solutions. You can start here:

An email from a like minded friend:

****************

In 1775, an anonymous author wrote these words in a New England newspaper: "Never was a cause more important or glorious than that which you are engaged in; not only your wives, your children, and distant posterity, but humanity at large, the world of mankind, are interested in it; for if tyranny should prevail in this great country, we may expect liberty will expire throughout the world. Therefore, more human glory and happiness may depend upon your exertions than ever yet depended upon any of the sons of men."

These words are more true now than they ever were. The freedom of our nation in centuries to come-and quite possibly the freedom of all mankind-will largely be determined by you and I right here and right now.

What are you willing to do to effect a revolution in your own life?

http://www.causeofliberty.com/2008/04/top-10-ways-to-lead-an-american-renaissance/

I invite you to be the change you want to see! The right mindset and a paradigm shift for many will only bring you prosperity, even in these difficult times.

TJ Thompson wrote -- "Our "impoverished" here are actually doing quite well in comparison to the third world."

I always have to respond to a comment like that. Yes, compared to the impoverished of Third World countries, our poor are much better off. Here in America, a homeless person has the chance to eat from some of the finest dumpsters and trash cans in the world; they can live under some of the fanciest bridges in the world; and they can wear designer clothes that have been thrown out by our middle and upper classes.

However, our impoverished do still starve to death, freeze to death and die from completely curable medical conditions.

What a most wonderful lifestyle, eh?

What Bill said:-)

What I enjoy most is the little wheelie thingy on my mouse that allows me to QUICKLY scroll past TJ's and Anne's long winded, obnoxious comments.

Isn't technology GREAT?!

Nick, McCain offers a comprehension of foreign policy and the resolve to defeat the terrorists instead of bargaining with them.

Then I dislike him even more than I thought. He comprehends and still made the wrong choices every single time? That's disgusting, TJ. He should drop out now, resign his seat in the senate, and retire.

Post Your Personal Farewell Message To George W. Bush And Be Part Of The Book The Whole World Is Writing.

WE not ME. I love that. That's how it is supposed to be.

It's the people who just can't see themselves as part of the WE that are holding this country back. They think if everyone has health care, jobs, secured retirement funds, education- that it will dim the sparkling life they have now.

Their candles will not grow brighter if they continue to blow out the flames of others.

Bill's Spirit,
No, compared to the middle class in the third world our welfare class do surprisingly well. The 20/20-John Stossel report on welfare was very insightful. Many welfare recipients have cable or satellite TV even. We are quick to make someone impoverished her the USA; we like to invent projects so we feel humane when we help them. Do you know how the poverty line was created? During the sixties, the government decided that if a family spent 1/3 of their income on the food necessary to provide a nutritious diet, they were at the poverty line. This is still our definition for poverty. At this time, 1/3 was the average amount a family spent on groceries. This means that, according to the government definition for poverty, the average American family was in poverty during the sixties! Clearly this definition overestimates who is really poor! The "poverty" rate here lingers around 12-16%. The people you describe are at the bottom of the lowest class and are not representative of the American "impoverished." Most people under the poverty line in the United States do not live on the streets, wear trash from dumpsters, or eat from dumpsters. You are attempting to define the rule by the exception.

Jerry, yes, technology makes ignoring alternative points of view so much easier! There's nothing like being uninformed what the "others" believe. Say what you want about my POV, but at least I am willing to read and thoughtfully consider everybody else's comments, then respond. I guess some talk about how great free speech is, and some actually value it by not drowning others out with my own arrogance. Use that scroll-button; it will ensure that you never have to question your views.

Sandy, I'm sure that with all of those crappy decisions he's made you had plenty of history to cite but just forgot.

fabuloso, I'm sure that with all of those crappy decisions Reagan made you had plenty of history to cite but just forgot. (Wow, is that a template that can work with every comment a liberal makes, since citing facts and history is a weakness of the Democratic Party? A: Maybe, let's see.) Anyway, it's pretty unsettling that your opinion of Barack changed because of a speech. When an otherwise unattractive candidate suddenly becomes attractive after a speech, you know you've been duped. How many Nazis do you think thought Hitler was kinda crazy until they heard his charming words--then they believed that certainly those Jews were up to something bad! How many communists do you think knew communism was a fraud until they heard some communist leader speak power to the working class? Sheesh, I'd almost rather have a mediocre orator like Bush just so I know he's not fooling me with his charm.

MJ W., you said: Their candles will not grow brighter if they continue to blow out the flames of others.

Isn't that the exact purpose of the progressive tax structure: to take some of the rich guy's flame so the poor guy's flame can be bigger and brighter?

TJ, this comment is specifically for you.

I don't hate all rich people.
Those who have earned their riches deserve their riches.
Those who have provided something for the benefit society.
For example, Bill Gates, the richest man in the world.
Many people hate Bill Gates because of his vast wealth.
But not me.
Without what Bill and Microsoft have done, we probably would not
have computers in every home, and an Internet to communicate
with each other.
He standardized the computer operating system platform.
He standardized the tools with which we work.
He was aggressive, and sometimes even ruthless, but it was always
with goal of something which would benefit all of mankind
- a standardized computer society.

He didn't go after the money, he let the money come to him.

He earned every dollar he has. I admire him greatly.
The same can be said of Intel.
The same can be said of Toyota.
American companies, employing American workers.
American companies providing a benefit to American Society.

That being said,
there are plenty of people, companies, out there who go only after the money.
They could care less whether they benefit society.
In fact, they prefer to hurt society,
because it usually means more money for them.

Examples: Enron and MCI Worldcom.

I do not mean the subordinate workers of these companies.
I mean the top executives who set the direction of the company.

What I have seen under the Bush Administration is an attitude that
going after the money, and not providing any useful benefit to society,
is OK, and even the preferred method of doing business.

Sorry, I cannot embrace that attitude.

Table 2: Wealth distribution by type of asset, 2001
Investment Assets
Top 1 percent Next 9 percent Bottom 90 percent
Business equity 57.3% 32.3% 10.4%
Financial securities 58.0% 30.6% 11.3%
Trusts 46.3% 40.4% 13.3%
Stocks and mutual funds 44.1% 40.4% 15.5%
Non-home real estate 34.9% 43.6% 21.5%
TOTAL 47.8% 37.7% 14.5%

Housing, Liquid Assets, Pension Assets, and Debt
Top 1 percent Next 9 percent Bottom 90 percent
Deposits 21.7% 35.5% 42.8%
Pension accounts 13.3% 47.0% 39.6%
Life insurance 12.5% 33.5% 54.0%
Principal residence 8.9% 28.0% 63.0%
Debt 5.8% 20.1% 74.1%
TOTAL 11.9% 34.0% 54.1%

From Wolff (2004).

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 44.1% of all privately held stock, 58.0% of financial securities, and 57.3% of business equity. The top 10% have 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

Numerous studies show that the wealth distribution has been extremely concentrated throughout American history, with the top 1% already owning 40-50% in large port cities like Boston, New York, and Charleston in the 19th century (Keister, 2005). It was very stable over the course of the 20th century, although there were small declines in the aftermath of the New Deal and World II, when most people were working and could save a little money. There were progressive income tax rates, too, which took some money from the rich to help with government services.

Then there was a further decline, or flattening, in the 1970s, but this time in good part due to a fall in stock prices, meaning that the rich lost some of the value in their stocks. By the late 1980s, however, the wealth distribution was almost as concentrated as it had been in 1929, when the top 1% had 44.2% of all wealth. It has continued to edge up since that time, with a slight decline from 1998 to 2001, before the economy crashed and little people got pushed down again. Table 3 and Figure 4 present the details from 1922 through 1998.

go here to see it.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

That is the fact and if you understand politics and government agenda....you realize that they want to keep you there.
You cannot have rich people unless the poor people are willing to accept that.
Fine if you rich but wahy do you have to steal from my work with high interest rates, or government deregulation, or send your money overseas.
This is an example, that we are not as democratic as we think.
We are not better off as a country as a middle class because the government does not allow it to happen. Reason why they have to stay in power and steal from the workers, the ants if you will.

TJ, you need life experience. It's obvious from your comments that your information comes from what you've been told to believe and biased sources of information. At your age, this is understandable. I would respect you for coming here to learn more, if I didn't know from experience that instead of coming here to learn from people who have age and experience, you come here to try and insult those with age, experience, and wisdom into believing that you know everything. What you think you know is not accurate.

lea, boo-hoo is all I can say to that. I know it sounds heartless, but it's just the way I feel about it. I am really quite done listening to people complain that the rich are *too* rich and the poor are *too* poor. Most people in this country have luxuries that are unimaginable to many people even from industrialized nations, as well as almost the entire third world. We are crybabies, and that is one thing I think that one McCain advisor said that resonates with me--to an extent. He was wrong to say that our economy isn't worsening, because inflation is doing some pretty nasty stuff to us. But even when times are swell there are so many people who have a fit because it's going better for somebody else. I have just tuned these people out. All they want is some invented justification for supporting communism, the most devilish economic theory I've ever heard of. I will still respond to them, but I am done pondering their motives. Their motives are quite clear now: they feel entitled to live better, they think that somebody else should fix their life for them. Like I said before, boo-hoo.

Jerry, okay Enron. Fine example. What about the oil companies? The Dems vilify them when their profit margin is actually very, very reasonable, if not too low for the kind of investment it takes to find oil. They provide A LOT to society. So while your example of Enron is swell, I'm not falling for the revisionist tale that only the bad apples are hated, because that is false. Oh and Wal-Mart? They save the average household $2,000 a year. If that's not benefitting American society, I don't know who is. Wal-Mart is one of the best companies this nation's ever had the glory of propagating.

Sandy, I know you think you can read me, but you can't. My father is less conservative than me (leans libertarian on some key issues), my mother pretty much stays out of politics (actually gets voter info. from me), and my one older sibling isn't even registered to vote yet. She thinks I'm too conservative, too, BTW. So where exactly do you think I got my ideas? Nevada public schools? Yeah, right. Ann Coulter? She points out things, I research them. Sometimes she understates things, believe it or not. So no, where I am getting all of my stuff? Dearest Sandy, what you think you know is not accurate. Whoops.

Sandy, age and experience in your case, was wasted on time. Why insult everyone who challenges what you think you know? Not sure how old TJ is, however, the youth of this country are becoming involved and are the ones who are open to learning. The youth of this country will repair what your generation chose to ignore. To busy doing - too busy pointing fingers - to busy bashing thoughts and ideas of which you have limited knowledge.

At least TJ has insight - you are like Obama - you have rhetoric.

And, if you'd seriously read any of MY posts, you would have learned more this week than you've learned in the past 20 years, but you have to be open to reality.

TJ, Oil companies are a mixed bag.

I don't hate them
- as you say, they definitely provide a service to society,
one that we certainly need.

But sometimes they do things that are not good,
like trying to discourage development of alternative energies,
which we really need to do.

You say their profit margin is small, but whenever a company
sells such large quantities of items, as in this case,
gallons of fuel, their profit margin usually IS small,
in fact, smaller than the profit margin that oil companies current get.
I suspect there is some price fixing among the oil companies
- but, of course, I cannot prove that - only suspect it.

Now Wallmart - I definitely hate Wallmart.
It is true, as you say, they save a lot of people money.
I'm not sure I can agree with the $2k figure, but I'll give you that.

But Wallmart does something very, very bad.
They virtually insist that companies move manufacturing to China,
to meet the low price Wallmart insists upon.
How do you feel about so much of our money going to China,
a Communist country?
I am under the impression you do not care much for Communism,
what with your "acquit McCarthy" and all.

For America, Wallmart is a catch-22.
For these low prices, a lot of jobs in America have been lost.
Sending more people to shop at Wallmart, sending more jobs overseas,
sending more people to shop at Wallmart, sending more jobs overseas.

Seems like Wallmart and China are doing well,
but what about the rest of America?

I know a lot of people love Wallmart like crazy.
I will not tell them to shop there.
But I will NOT shop there - my choice.

Just curious TJ, do you shop at Wallmart? Often?

Linda, I am 18 years of age, and it is no use trying to explain to Sandy that age doesn't matter because she has found that age discrimination (backwards in this case) gives her credentials she has never earned.

fabuloso, I was born during the H. W. Bush administration, in 1990. You said: Here's a tip, you might want to know why my opinion changed or what my opinion was before you shot off your mouth. No, it is YOUR job to post all the info. you want others to know. When you post a comment and leave details out, it is NOT my job to ask you if you have anything more to add before I comment BASED ON WHAT YOU POSTED. You also said: I mean really TJ, I gave you more credit that what you've been showing here since your return. I honestly don't remember you from before I was booted. Did you change your screen name? Anyway, don't do me any favors. I never asked you to feign acceptance of me or my POVs. Either you do, or you don't. Be honest about it.

Jerry, I do shop at Wal-Mart often. I would buy food there, too, except the Wal-Mart in Rexburg, Idaho, isn't a Supercenter. The small-town nature has also kept them from building a Supercenter in town, sadly, because on my student budget I could spend a substantial amount less on food if a Wal-Mart Supercenter were available here.

If you could locate and send me data about the oil companies' historical profit margins, that would be very useful in converting your baseless claim into a substantiated one.

A web site owned by Wal-Mart makes the $2,000/yr. claim. Sounds reasonable to me, especially if you buy your food there. I can totally see a family saving about $40 a week by shopping at Wal-Mart; they are cheap.

I do not like how much we have invested in communist China, but Western investments may be responsible for their (slowly) democratizing process. I don't think they will willingly give up communism, but they do seem to embrace *some* free market ideas. They have invested a lot in US, though, so it is unreasonable (for many reasons, really) to just say that we stop manufacturing there. They seem to pose no substantial danger at this point, so I think we can trade with them as we do now and still influence/inspire change in their government. It's like illegal immigration: we're in a sticky situation and blaming Wal-Mart doesn't help at all. They just took advantage of a policy thousands of other companies have taken advantage of.

Linda, do you believe that 9/11 was an "inside job"? Do you believe that the income tax is "illegal"?

fabuloso, I know and am grateful that you have stuck up for me. I also do not think that I can be blamed for making logical assumptions when you failed to provide all the facts until after I had commented. I speak according to my knowledge at the time, plus logical assumptions.

The above discussion about Wal-Mart prompted me to get an article I just read this evening and share with you. Here is what I read from “The Crusador” in an article by Greg Ciola. (Crusador mainly covers health issues but wanted to…

“warn us to prepare for a very likely coming National Emergency. Come this Nov. we are either going to free-fall at a must faster pace or there may be some Divine intervention.

“Obama or McCain will not save America. Both are actively working for the "powers that be" that are seeking world government. They only have different views on how the complete surrender of America to world govt. can be achieved. One thing Obama has that McCain doesn’t, is world popularity. Obama is being embraced as a kind of Messianic figure. With Obama, global integration may happen at a quicker pace w/o escalating the war; although you can be assured that there will be more wars, more dead Americans and more economic hardship the next four years.

“With McCain, we are 100% guaranteed that the war machine will be ratcheted up...first order of business will to be attach Iran; then Venezuela while simultaneously instigating and antagonizing the Russians and Chinese in hopes of destabilizing their regimes. ...Global control of oil will determine who is in charge under the New World Order.

“Reason why Congress held top secret meeting in spring...if you thought $4.25 gas was bad with oil at $147, wait until we initiate more wars and oil goes to $400, $1000, or worse, we can't get any. Then what will happen to our economy, our jobs, our food supply, and our way of life? The civil unrest (in cities) will be like the L.A. riots magnified 1000 times in every major American city.

“...there's a reason why Homeland Security has offices at Wal-Mart headquarters in Arkansas. Wal-Mart is pegged to be the government’s food distribution center when it all goes bust.

“...Don't think the govt. will be there to help...look at the victims of Katrina. They have plans to use millions of NATO and UN troops to help maintain order.

“By preparing, you need to consider the basic necessities: food and water, shelter, power, clothing, personal protection, etc.

“Prayer is the last thing I urge you to do, but is the first and most important thing that needs to occur. Pray for our country, our families, our children, or friends and loved ones...”
"The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it." (Proverbs 27:12)"

*****End of Article******

I felt compelled to share a very small portion of this article - enough for you to understand the seriousness of what may be upon us. I've been part of the Ron Paul r3VOLution and headed our local Meet-up group. His supporters have followed him, listened to his insight that an economic collapse is inevitable. Therefore anticipated this and have been planning for months; so this article was not news to me. We get our news from worldwide sources and share the info on dailypaul.com, as our old media is silent. Would rather be prepared and not need it than the other way around.

Please glean from it what you may, and if you really pay attention, everything that is happening falls right in line with this information. One thing I believe is that God is in control and has the power to turn things around. We always have the power of prayer.

TJ. everything I've read and all the videos I've seen give me pause. I don't think the "investigation" was thorough and support additional review. Hundreds of architects and engineers say buildings do not free fall at the speed of gravity. Building seven's demise was reported, on TV, one hr. before it fell. Bush said he "saw the first plain hit the building" before he went in to read with a kindergarten class (and held the book upside down), but that was impossible because it was not televised until some time later. (saw the actual video of him telling that). I had a huge knot in my stomach (before all this other info came across my net) when I saw them whisper to him about the plane(s) and he had no expression of urgency, surprise, or concern, and kept "reading" for another 20 minute. So, yes, I have GREAT pause.

Yes, Federal Income Tax is illegal; the states never ratified the amendment but they have the power and the guns, so we must pay. If you ask them to show you the law, they can't but put people in jail anyhow. Judges and juries fear them when a case does go to court. When they started collecting it, people never questioned it's or their authority at that time.

Great questions, TJ. Only 18, I'm so impressed with your depth of knowledge and you have compassion and understanding far beyond your years. Are you sure you weren't home schooled? I know many 14 and 15 year olds (home schooled) and you remind me of them. They have direction, insight, compassion, enthusiasm, excitement, know their plans for their future, and understanding of what is going on in our "democracy with a dictator" as one of these students noted when I heard them on freecapitalist.com radio (via the internet).

You could teach many of the collective ignorant if they would just turn their brains on, read and listen, instead of insulting and defending the tired disinformation they on which they cling.

I disagree about 9/11.
If al-Qaeda was not responsible for 9/11, how easy would it be to destroy our political structure by leaking evidence of their non-involvement? They would be able to send us into oblivion without deploying a single suicide bomber; I don't think that we could survive learning that our government killed 3,000 innocent civilians. The uproar, the riots, the assassination plots: we would be destroyed. Why hasn't al-Qaeda done that yet?

There are various interpretations of the ratification procedure of the 16th Amendment. I do believe that holding states responsible to collect taxes for the government (the original means of tax collection) makes sense because each state has its own industry or asset. Regardless, we need tax dollars to pay for things like national security, so whatever we do with taxes, they must be a part of the American experience. I don't like the income tax, but I think trying to get away with not paying it is still selfish because we need the money. If we want to reform tax law, fine, but paying one's share is only fair (wow--a rhyme LOL).

I definitely was not homeschooled. :) I'm definitely not a libertarian, either, but I think conservatives and libertarians have a lot of mutual goals that we can work together to achieve.

Thanks, TJ
Read the history (freedom of info act) of Pearl Harbor. Proof we knew they were coming and had most of our ships in that harbor. If you understand their tyrannical reasoning, the rest of the events here will make more sense too

You are right, if the Americans knew that 9/11 was an inside job, there would be *heck* to pay. Time will tell as the truth always comes out but if it was another Pearl Harbor, what will be done? Nothing, just like Pearl Harbor - too much time had passed and no one left to hold accountable.

All I know is that they've had people living in fear "war on terror - war on terror - war on terror" and people, docile from fluoride in their water, sit idly by while they've stolen all our freedom - ALL. I believe the war on terror was a war on our freedoms. Innocent people don't care that they've given up their right to privacy - they don't see the serious implications of the Patriot Act, FISA, HB 1955 [insert rest here] down the road.

Here's a recent example of our involvement in an incident and the spin the govt. and media attach to it. Russia's Georgia.

What really happened in Georgia?
1. The citizens of South Ossetia have long expressed a desire to break away from Georgia and, in fact, declared themselves independent from Georgia in the 1990s.
2. On the first day of the 2008 Olympics, Georgia launched an all-out, "shock and awe" attack on numerous civilian targets in Tskhinvali, the capital city of South Ossetia (killed over 2,000)
3. Russia, which shares a border and a long historical connection with South Ossetia, sent troops into the region to fight back the attacking Georgian military.
4. The arms for Georgia's attack on South Ossetia were largely provided by the US.
5. The US and UK news media have successfully managed to portray these events as a random, unprovoked and savage attack on Georgia by Russia.

Mikhail Gorbachev on Russian Georgian Conflict pt.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSd_FNhZEZs


American Mercenary Captured By Russians

Georgia using Ukranian and American mercenaries?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS-9_1TaYU0&feature=related

American troops found amongst Georgian dead
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBMQufrBWdg&feature=related

AMERICAN trapped in GEORGIA says Georgians Committing GENOCIDE, No better than SADDAM, America Get Out of Georgia!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLoBckWl-dg&feature=related

The crimes of Georgian's army in S. Ossetia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE1WNJOfnHY&feature=related

War in the Caucasus: Towards a Broader Russia-US Military Confrontation?
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3902

War is a Racket by General Smedley Butler
http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-War_Is_A_Racket

Remember your thoughts, from old media, on this conflict - then watch these videos, disseminate the information, and form your own conclusions. Obviously you are a person who is not easily led and will think for yourself.

My definition of fascism, is when the fed. govt, the media, and Corporatists unite and/or conspire to control the population, the money, the industry - everything.

On the Federal Income Tax...
First we should follow the Constitution whereby the Federal Govt. has it's place, and the states should handle their individual state issues, with direct input from the voting people in that state.

The Fed. Govt., if downsized to it's original Constitutional intent would have the money required to uphold that responsibility, from other taxes (tarrif is one that comes to mind). They want our money to sustain the nanny state, for earmarks for politicians, for war for profit (for the Corporatists), and our private army - Halliburton & KBR; private militia - Blackwater; Homeland Security and FEMA concentration camps; and many other devious plans.

Meanwhile, our infrastructure in crumbling and they are selling our roads to Foreign Interests AND loaning them OUR money! If we sold everything in the U.S., we still could no