Displaying 1,801 To 1,830 Of 3,237 Comments MSM Misleads in Telling the Story of Obama’s Personal Taxes And that delay will lead many, I hope, to ask: What is he hiding? As Axelrod says: Romney is playing ‘I’ve Got a Secret.’ » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 16, 2012 @ 8:40 pm If O were not in office I suspect he would be a member of the Patriotic Millionaires. I wrote a shorter version of this story for HP and got lots of hits on it. Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, Cain all have poor records in the area of charitable giving. And now O is responsible for what the Secret Service is doing in Columbia….anything but the essential issues that deeply touch us all. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 15, 2012 @ 5:36 pm Agreed. I really should have included your point re. Obama tax policy raising his rate as the GOP seek to lower theirs (and more importantly, their sponsors). A runaway, which the truth would promote, does not serve the MSM interests. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 15, 2012 @ 5:33 pm Well, their base does and they are good at drawing the low info unconnected people into decisions that work against their best interests. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 15, 2012 @ 5:27 pm Manufactured outrage, phony issues, and distraction…MSM stock and trade….as you so often point out. There is a good deal of chatter re. how honest the 20.1 percent figure is- but it is his real/effective rate and therefore the one that most are quoting, including me. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 15, 2012 @ 5:14 pm Why GOP Leaders Aren’t Worried About Throwing the Affordable Care Act Under the Bus Ad Lib….nice link between the Justices on the Right and the GOP culture of “I got mine and to hell with you.” I listened to the Romney Campaigns tele conference today on Women’s Issues and was stunned at how inept the Romney surrogates were- the most obvious points regarding equality of pay, access, and treatment were unknown territory to them. The hypocrisy is real…so is the ignorance….followed by the arrogance. And yet they are support, automatically, by 40 percent of the electorate…frightening. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 11, 2012 @ 7:57 pm Bourne, I just noticed that this post is not under a CL response. You probably should leave her a note under one of her comments to say that this very substantive reply was written to her. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 11, 2012 @ 7:16 pm I think you are having a good time in “the conversation” re. your article! AND, you have a great reference to which you can send folks when they want to know more! » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 11, 2012 @ 6:43 pm Choice….as always you weigh in with a great data base and vast experience. I am going to read this through another time or two to get a better grasp on it. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 10, 2012 @ 8:53 pm Does Mitt Romney Have a Mormon Problem? Sue- the point you make in all of this is that Romney is unlike any previous presidential candidate. He is a leader in his church (despite his current lack of public office). He is a leader in a church with a long standing and unrepudiated creed of cultic triumphalism. Unlike JFK he cannot make an honest speech about not governing in obeisance to his religious belief because The Latter Day Saints are firmly committed to the creation of a Mormon nation. It’s important to bring this information to the fore. Happy to see it here but how to sow the seed….. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 9, 2012 @ 6:44 pm Romney the Private Equity Consultant I will provide the link to the Planet and to your article when I use this material. I believe that these three Romney comments in a major address, a public pronouncements in an editorial and in his appearance before an editorial board that a) TARP should have never been pass, b) the Auto Industry Bailout is a mistake, and c) The Housing Market should have been allowed to bottom out…..disqualify him from the Oval Office. In these three statements he makes it clear that he is manfestly unqualified to be President. Presidents must understand that their role is a HUMAN one and not a Corporate one. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 21, 2012 @ 12:22 pm KQ….Better Late Than Never “Based on the environment Romney matured in whether he was right or wrong he and Bain Capital profited the vast majority of the time. It simply did not matter that the companies he consulted with went bankrupt or not because Bain almost always got there share.” So how does someone with this mentality approach government? I would think that they regard every decision in terms of potential profit and loss, BUT know that if their is loss it will not be their loss – someone else, i.e. the taxpayers, will cover the cost. “Private equity consultants with a pre-destined agenda are also very poor at tough decision making simply because it takes a certain mental rigidity and ruthlessness to be a Romney type consultant. ” Does this explain Romney’s approach to issues of foreign policy- all black and white, no grey space? When I read this I paused – I have been thinking for a long time that Romney’s “taking it to Iranians” was just over the top macho braggadocio but your comments make me think it is how he actually will be. Yes? “Romney simply never even bothers to evaluate the broader consequences of what he says or does. In other words the concept of coming off as being presidential (beyond Romney’s superficial appearance) is foreign to Romney.” Is this why Romney is not a good political creature? He did one term as a governor and “The Real Romney” makes it pretty clear that not only was he facing a battle to get a second term but that he really did not like the job very much and did not have the heart to run again. Do you agree? If so, why is he running for president? Is it as you say…”Let us be unequivocal here Romney’s plan is to expand the American plutocracy and nothing else.” Is this the ultimate act of THE Bain man? “Romney is an excellent private equity business consultant, poor political consultant and would simply be a terrible president. Fortunately he is a terrible campaigner with his lack of authenticity and other fatal personality flaws. Fortunately President Obama is almost the anti-Romney in so many ways. Problem solving, decision making and most of all strategic presidential thinking are some of his major strengths. Not to mention the personal qualities like integrity and consistency that are the root of these higher level character traits. The president has no problem understanding complex matters and nuance, saying and doing the things that are not politically easy or even taking on his base sometimes.” One of the best simple, succinct summaries of the governing character of the two men. Thank you. KQ…this article is one of the best I have read on the election. It did not get the attention it deserves. I want to copy and paste it into my archive and use it again and again and again at the four blogs I wrote on. May I have your support in doing this. Do you want direct credit….POV link etc. I will follow your wishes in this. Brilliant piece of work. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 21, 2012 @ 8:06 am “Based on the environment Romney matured in whether he was right or wrong he and Bain Capital profited the vast majority of the time. It simply did not matter that the companies he consulted with went bankrupt or not because Bain almost always got there share.” So how does someone with this mentality approach government? I would think that they regard every decision in terms of potential profit and loss, BUT know that if their is loss it will not be their loss – someone else, i.e. the taxpayers, will cover the cost. “Private equity consultants with a pre-destined agenda are also very poor at tough decision making simply because it takes a certain mental rigidity and ruthlessness to be a Romney type consultant. ” Does this explain Romney’s approach to issues of foreign policy- all black and white, no grey space? When I read this I paused – I have been thinking for a long time that Romney’s “taking it to Iranians” was just over the top macho braggadocio but your comments make me think it is how he actually will be. Yes? “Romney simply never even bothers to evaluate the broader consequences of what he says or does. In other words the concept of coming off as being presidential (beyond Romney’s superficial appearance) is foreign to Romney.” Is this why Romney is not a good political creature? He did one term as a governor and “The Real Romney” makes it pretty clear that not only was he facing a battle to get a second term but that he really did not like the job very much and did not have the heart to run again. Do you agree? If so, why is he running for president? Is it as you say…”Let us be unequivocal here Romney’s plan is to expand the American plutocracy and nothing else.” Is this the ultimate act of THE Bain man? “Romney is an excellent private equity business consultant, poor political consultant and would simply be a terrible president. Fortunately he is a terrible campaigner with his lack of authenticity and other fatal personality flaws. Fortunately President Obama is almost the anti-Romney in so many ways. Problem solving, decision making and most of all strategic presidential thinking are some of his major strengths. Not to mention the personal qualities like integrity and consistency that are the root of these higher level character traits. The president has no problem understanding complex matters and nuance, saying and doing the things that are not politically easy or even taking on his base sometimes.” One of the best simple, succinct summaries of the governing character of the two men. Thank you. KQ…this article is one of the best I have read on the election. It did not get the attention it deserves. I want to copy and paste it into my archive and use it again and again and again at the four blogs I wrote on. May I have your support in doing this. Do you want direct credit….POV link etc. I will follow your wishes in this. Brilliant piece of work. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 21, 2012 @ 8:05 am Buy Gravity – PlanetPOV Spring Fundraising & Membership Drive Done. The Crossroads GPS announcement that they were ready to dump $200 million into promoting the BIG LIES north to south, east to west urged me on. I hope many others realize how important it is that we nurture places where truth can be spoken, and untruths confronted. I do not need a gift….The planet is gift enough. Thanks. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 9, 2012 @ 6:18 pm Remarks by the President at the A.P. Luncheon Bito…thanks for posting this here so “we” can chat about it. My thoughts… Yesterday Obama gave fair warning to the Supreme Court. The days of bipartisan hoping, of soft words, of kindly affected compliments, of no drama are done. Facts drive the message which is nestled in the stories of people’s lives. And the message is clear. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 3, 2012 @ 8:44 pm GOP to Pass Voting Rights Act for Corporations KT…that is what fooled me too. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 2, 2012 @ 4:05 pm Ad Lib Good summary…it is hard to imagine how far the GOP is willing to go…they have gone so much further than I ever thought they would. As Biden said a couple of days ago: the GOP used to hide what they wanted to do behind terms like “compassionate conservative”….now they just come right out and declare they are against the social safety net. When the truth is that unbelievable, how does write an April 1 parody. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 2, 2012 @ 4:04 pm Choice Lady….As I said, the story was a great April Fool because it was so believable. Are suggesting there be a poll tax for corporations? Sure. Any way we can get them to pay their fair share, the better. As Romney has proclaimed: ‘Corporations are People, My friends.” Anyone who says that is NOT my friend. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 2, 2012 @ 4:00 pm WELL DONE AD LIB…. I googled the Universal Voting Rights Act three times using different word combinations (and including the names of the members of Congress you cited). Like others I did not read all the way to the bottom. Why? I was so outraged by the end of the first couple of paragraphs and it seemed to so credible that I wanted to read the bill. Given the legislative agenda promoted by ALEC and the enthusiastic embracing of same by the GOP the article’s thesis was not only logical, but it also seem likely. After all, the purpose of new voter ID laws is to demobilize certain portions of electorate who are more likely to vote for Democrats, a goal laid out by ALEC founder, Paul Weyrich many decades ago who stated that “I don’t want everybody to vote… Our leverage in the elections goes up as the voting populus goes down.” It only makes sense to play to the other side of the equation and grant the vote to those more likely to vote for Republicans. The next step is weighted voting based on wealth. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On April 2, 2012 @ 7:55 am As usual with the closely divided Court, the deciding vote belongs Kennedy. His skepticism towards the government’s argument is no surprise. He’s proven to be the Justice most likely to side with the individual against the government, regardless of the politics. He pleases liberals on gay rights and pleases conservatives on affirmative action. Although the federal government imposes other mandates on individuals — to serve on juries, register for the selective service, file tax returns — opponents of Obamacare have been successful in portraying the mandate as a dire threat to individual liberty. Given that framing, Justice Kennedy’s apparent hostility to the mandate is hardly shocking. BUT..on Tuesday and Wednesday he made points that health care touches everyone within the society and that it may require special handling and an exemption from the limitations he is disposed to place on the commerce clause. Today he noted that uninsured people result in an “intolerable burden” to the society and therefore to each citizen within the society. Kennedy has often cited the common good as the guiding principle in judging the value of any law. With that in mind, I expect him to vote with the liberal wing of the court. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On March 28, 2012 @ 9:11 pm What If? The Affordable Care Act and the Supreme Court IF THE HEALTH CARE LAW IS STRUCK DOWN….”MY SON WILL DIE” A mom reflects on how a death panel could end up killing his son Spoke with a friend this morning. Her son has a respiratory illness which requires monthly hospital treatments (one weekend), daily meds, and a weekly at-home nurse practitioner delivered breathing treatment. He is five years old. Until the ACA, his family was desperate. The dad’s employer health insurance would not cover the illness since it was a pre-existing condition. He has worked in his current job for 4 years. The illness was discovered one month after he started work there. They have mortgaged their home, taken out private loans, done fundraisers. Mom, who has two other kids, works a phone sales job from home on commission. It was clear they were running out of options. The doctors and hospital were working with them but they too were running out of options and when the option run out, the boy dies. If he has treatment, he will live a long life, impaired but not extraordinarily so. On March 23, 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (i,e, Obamacare) passed and their lives changed for the better. The insurer is covering their costs. Their premiums are up but by comparison with their previous situation, that increase is affordable. As of yesterday, that all changed for them. IF SCOTUS RULES THAT THE MANDATE CANNOT STAND BUT THE REST OF THE BILL CAN, THEY ARE OK. BUT, IF SCOTUS RULES THAT THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE MANDATE SHUTS DOWN THE ENTIRE BILL, THEY KNOW THAT WITHIN A WEEK THEY WILL BE NOTIFIED THAT THEIR SON’S COVERAGE WILL BE WITHDRAWN. They will do all they can to get their son relief and care, but the chances are that within a year or two, he will succumb to his condition. THE GOP IS CORRECT….WE ARE FACING THE POSSIBILITY OF A DEATH PANEL….IT IS CALLED THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On March 28, 2012 @ 6:39 am If the Dems had been able to pass such a law the GOP would have performed the necessary lateral arabesques to argue its constitutionality. If they can stand up and condemn the mandate program they created in response to Hillary Care’s model for a single payer, then they would happily find grounds to take on the tax and the tax credit. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On March 28, 2012 @ 6:01 am Let me add that if you need food, our society has had programs in place to provide nutrition (The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, food stamps; Assistance to Families with Deptendent Children; etc.). Privately funded charities have opened food pantries and soup kitchens. But efforts in recent years by the GOP to make access to those resources has resulted in less funding, more restrictions and a greater stigma by association. I regard the GOP effort to take down health care reform as a preemptive strike on an entitlement their plutocratic masters do not want to bear. The justices allied to them are reaching for reasons to justify their intention to slam the law. Your arguments are logical and in the real world. They do not care. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On March 28, 2012 @ 5:58 am Wishful thinking? Don’t know. I put nothing past this Roberts Court. Nothing. So have they evolved? I have my doubts. Will the application of the common good principle and the commerce clause be a sufficient reason to rule in favor of the mandate and the overall ACA bill? Perhaps your description of these guys showing their feathers and strutting about is compelling. I hope it is accurate. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On March 27, 2012 @ 7:07 pm YOUR KEY POINT: We are, as a society MANDATED to provide medical care…which makes health care a massive exception to our usual set of rules…and as a result an exception in law must be made for the Health Care Insurance Mandate…. In that light, Kennedy is a possible vote in favor of the mandate. I agree. Good thinking on your part as the result of good reading/listening. Thanks. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On March 27, 2012 @ 7:03 pm THE BROCCOLI ARGUMENT: The Key to the Whole Game? If the federal government can force you to buy health insurance, can it force you to buy broccoli. Or take out a membership a gym membership, a cell phone? They cut to the core of the debate over the constitutionality of the individual mandate,. Now commentators are busy trying to parse the words of the justices in an effort to predict their likely judgments. Recall that the justices come loaded for bear having read lots of summaries, background materials and particular amicus briefs. The key question: the powers granted the federal government by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which permits regulation of interstate business. This conservative court has struck down federal laws on guns near schools and violence against women that it found overstepped that authority. It has been stingy in the application of the clause. The issue is the method of regulation and funding. The conservative justices seemed skeptical that the government could require citizens to purchase anything. But even this court is likely to agree that the Commerce Clause gives Washington wide latitude to regulate health care, given its indisputable impact on interstate commerce. This why I think they will find that severability in the statute is allowed- the mandate can be stripped from the ACA while the rest of it stands. I was struck by a question from one of the court’s more liberal justices, Elena Kagan pointed out that the law doesn’t force a person to purchase the insurance. It just imposes an added tax on those who decline to do so, much as the government imposes taxes based on other decisions, such as selling stock. That is a reasonable policy. Because if you don’t buy health insurance and you get into a car crash, the cost of treating your injuries will be shared by the rest of society. A study by Families USA estimated that the uninsured add more than $1,000 to the cost of a typical health plan. An added tax offers some compensation. Remember that the mandate was invented by conservatives as an alternative to a single-payer system proposed by Hillary Clinton. That’s what Canadians and Brits have, and they are healthier than we are, and happier with their system. It is essentially Medicare for all. We are stuck with a more awkward and complex system because conservatives would not go there. Now their guns are aimed at the mandate, which they call socialism. If they win this court case, what would they do about the roughly 50 million Americans who lack coverage? Their failure to answer that question speaks volumes. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On March 27, 2012 @ 5:39 pm And yet we may need to launch a full court press on this now. Consider all that will be lost that is already in place and all the will be lost that is supposed to come into place…and work with everything we have got to get many, many folks in panic mode aiming for a Dem resurgence in the House and Senate with Obama still in the WH. Or am I dreaming? » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On March 27, 2012 @ 4:57 pm And after today’s grilling that may be what we are stuck with. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On March 27, 2012 @ 4:54 pm Lowskiesgirl….welcome to the Planet. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On March 27, 2012 @ 4:49 pm “And since I have lots of family and friends in the US, I’m well aware of what’s at stake in this case. I just wish my family and friends were. ” Best quote of the day for me. You capture something very important here. It is so easy to manipulate, mislead and misdirect the uninformed. It is what the opponents of Health Care Reform are counting on. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On March 27, 2012 @ 4:02 pmComments Posted By MurphTheSurf3
Today he extended that warning to the GOP in general and Mitt Romney in particular.
The gloves are off, the stilettos are sharpened, the glare is hard, the voice is steel.
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats