Really? To think all this time I thought this was about health care reform and now you are telling me it really has to do with some kind of nefarious government take-over where citizens who don’t get insurance will end up in jail? Our forefathers must, indeed, be turning over in their graves especially since the idea of health care for all wasn’t something they were struggling with. They did say ,however, something about equality even though they left out women and blacks, but, at least, they were entertaining that idea. And that inept President of ours, trying to destroy this country! Did he set out to do this when do you suppose? Maybe when he was involved with all those Chicago thugs who used to drown certain trouble-makers in Lake Michigan? Destruction is a powerful word. Be careful when you use it. 

You mean like this interesting tid-bit? 

I agree, Beck certainly does dig for truth; the problem is he gives up after two shovelfuls and makes up the rest.

And yes, it’s a pity that our President never had a REAL job. Those darn law professors never could muster enough clout to consider teaching anything like a job. But I have a question for you? How would being responsible for a payroll or running a company prepare one for becoming president of the United States? Is this really the criteria you want to be using? And please do more looking into exactly what that stimulus is doing for states––(I think it should have been much more). Without it we would have been in worse shape than we are now. And small business was not ignored. Lest you think I am singing the liberal lyrics, my concern is, and I’ve said this to you before,  our financial behemoths ––the banks, investment houses, Wall Street derivative schemers. Obama promised change in this and in lobbying practices. I am waiting for this change. So far I am not satisfied with the little that has been done. 

From PolitiFact: 

False. Obama’s economic adviser — Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers — has never said that a tax in the health care bill would cost up to 5.5 million jobs. Republicans have used her 2007 research to develop a calculation for job losses for any type of tax increase. If you have a number for tax revenues generated, then this model will give you a number of jobs lost. But there are factors that make this type of analysis troublesome when it comes to the health care bill. Romer’s 2007 research, for example, said that tax increases that fund spending for social programs tend to balance out, and economic growth stays on an even keel. Another problem is that the Republicans take tax increases that happen over 10 years and treat them as if they happen in one year, which inflates the numbers of jobs that might be lost. Finally, this particular Republican analysis includes more taxes than just the surtax of page 336; it also includes the employer mandates of page 313. We find this analysis to be problematic and contrary to how Obama’s economic adviser said the model should work. 

Always good to have another viewpoint: this from Krugman:

About that good news: not that long ago the U.S. economy was in free fall. Without the recovery act, the free fall would probably have continued, as unemployed workers slashed their spending, cash-strapped state and local governments engaged in mass layoffs, and more.

The stimulus didn’t completely eliminate these effects, but it was enough to break the vicious circle of economic decline. Aid to the unemployed and help for state and local governments were probably the most important factors. If you want to see the recovery act in action, visit a classroom: your local school probably would have had to fire a lot of teachers if the stimulus hadn’t been enacted.

What I keep hearing from Washington is one of two arguments: either (1) the stimulus has failed, unemployment is still rising, so we shouldn’t do any more, or (2) the stimulus has succeeded, G.D.P. is growing, so we don’t need to do any more. The truth, which is that the stimulus was too little of a good thing — that it helped, but it wasn’t big enough — seems to be too complicated for an era of sound-bite politics.

But can we afford to do more? We can’t afford not to.

High unemployment doesn’t just punish the economy today; it punishes the future, too. In the face of a depressed economy, businesses have slashed investment spending — both spending on plant and equipment and “intangible” investments in such things as product development and worker training. This will hurt the economy’s potential for years to come.

Deficit hawks like to complain that today’s young people will end up having to pay higher taxes to service the debt we’re running up right now. But anyone who really cared about the prospects of young Americans would be pushing for much more job creation, since the burden of high unemployment falls disproportionately on young workers — and those who enter the work force in years of high unemployment suffer permanent career damage, never catching up with those who graduated in better times.

Even the claim that we’ll have to pay for stimulus spending now with higher taxes later is mostly wrong. Spending more on recovery will lead to a stronger economy, both now and in the future — and a stronger economy means more government revenue. Stimulus spending probably doesn’t pay for itself, but its true cost, even in a narrow fiscal sense, is only a fraction of the headline number.

O.K., I know I’m being impractical: major economic programs can’t pass Congress without the support of relatively conservative Democrats, and these Democrats have been telling reporters that they have lost their appetite for stimulus.

But I hope their stomachs start rumbling soon. We now know that stimulus works, but we aren’t doing nearly enough of it. For the sake of today’s unemployed, and for the sake of the nation’s future, we need to do much more. 

There are few actors that can become a multitude of persons and pull it off.  Anna is one of these. She even plays males and is believable. She’s a huge presence––even on West Wing when she appeared everyone else disappeared into the background.

Edie Sedgwick: Years ago I read whats-his-name’s book on her and was captivated. I’m always hesitant to see a film about someone’s life after I’ve read about it, just as I am about seeing a film based on a novel I’ve read. I have pictures in my mind that don’t correspond to the film’s.

I remember the Hemingway sisters well. The beautiful one destroyed herself; the talented one had a thing with Woody Allen and made some decent films. 

I had to stop watching the videos half way through. I felt as though I was spying on a therapy session. It hurt me to watch. I have questions: Why would you succumb  to an interview like this? Why would you decide to have all these children in the first place if you knew that you wouldn’t be able to afford them? (as Kate said). Now she’s locked in financially and has to continue because of this?  I used to watch the program because I was fascinated by how this couple would cope with their brood. As the twins developed I detected an anger in them–-more in Mattie––and a disrespect to the parents. I would imagine having a twin is one thing, but then having, suddenly, six more siblings is another. Fame can be destructive; the Gosselins are prime examples. 

I hesitate to comment on Rush only because I think he’s off his chump. I will say I agree with Mr. Wow’s aghast at no socks. I don’t think he ever wears a tie––perhaps it interferes with his blow heartiness-cuts off the old windpipe that needs all the air it can get.