Thursday, 9/9/10, Public Square


Filed under The Public Square

44 responses to “Thursday, 9/9/10, Public Square

  1. GMC70

    The first step to freedom is to proclaim “No.” I can live with that.

    In most cases, the best thing gov’t can do is nothing.

    • indypendent

      Then I assume you are okay with not keeping the Bush tax cuts and cutting off all subsidies to companies.


      After all, no self-respecting Republican would want to touch ‘evil government’ money – now would they?

    • paulasayles

      In most cases, the best thing gov’t can do is nothing.

      Nothing on Katrina, nothing on the BP Spill, nothing about miners working in unsafe conditions, nothing about sick people who can’t work, nothing about joblessness, nothing about companies that pollute, nothing about immigration, nothing about wildfires, nothing about tornadoes, nothing about crop prices, nothing about bridges, roads and dams…

      I would have agreed with you if you had said “In SOME cases” instead of “most.” With a society as large as ours, there are many services that we, of a necessity, rely on government to provide.

  2. I’m really looking forward to the Republican majorities in Congress!

    • indypendent

      I’m looking forward to when Republicans proceed to abolish Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

      With all the fellow Americans lining up for help to even survive – surely all those mega churches filled with those divine, saintly God-fearing Christians will step up to the plate and fulfill the true mission of what Jesus did – minister to the poor, hungry and outcasts of society?

      Imagine if that happened – alot of gold cross salesmen will be put on the unemployment line!

      And alot of luxury car dealers – Gucchi suits and accessories will also have to be cut out of that church budget.

      Oh my – are these mega church preachers and their followers up to the challenge?

  3. Cooler temps, the tops of the trees washed with the moderate rainfall, pleasant! 😉


    I note that accounting is included. That has been true for as long as I’ve been paying attention. Personal example: in 1972, things economy were grim; the number of interviewing firms at the KU School of Business was way down. Accounting majors (of which I was one) saw this, too; only six interviews instead of a dozen or more (the latter number being the ‘norm’). Still better than Marketing majors (interviews, if any, centered around selling insurance); Finance majors (resumes gathering dust); Personnel majors, ditto.

    Whenever I, in my Site Council persona, am asked about what major…to get a job, I always answer “Accounting” (which is now combined with MIS in many schools), knowing that the majority won’t want to pursue it after a look at the requirements.

    • indypendent

      Health care is a good field also. And if you’re bilingual – you are highly desirable.

      • I’m a bit dubious about health care. Low(er) paying positions, sure; there’s a tremendous demand there, no doubt fueled in part by the turn over. Reason for personal position: niece, RN (degreed), two years experience (cardiac, in particular); due to ‘personal’ reasons, wanted to go to KC area, leaving good job in this area; looked for quite a while to even obtain an interview in KC area (where, allegedly, strong demand for qualified nurses exists) before finally landing job at KUMC. On-line applications only, warning to not contact prospective employers at all or application would be disregarded, etc. Doesn’t sound all that attractive to me.

  5. G-STIR

    I think their phrase, correctly stated is:

    “No for you,’Mo for me”. ????

    • Or, “No for the unwashed masses and common working man (which of course no Republican is part of), ‘Mo for the corporations.”

      • indypendent

        I think Meghan McCain summed up the current GOP very well when she said the radical right wants to make the GOP their own private country club.

        And this is from a girl who has had the advantages of millions of dollars in her life.

        I enjoyed the interview Meghan did with Rachel Maddow last night. I came away with an even more positive view of Meghan McCain.

        I just wonder where all the other moderate Republicans have gone? Meghan McCain even told Rachel that she has been treated very badly by the radical right GOP. Meghan thinks there should be a place for all moderates in both parties to come to – kinda like Fox News is for the radical right.

      • The only part I don’t understand is why she is a Republican. Everything she said had absolutely nothing to do with what that party is today. In fact, the GOP hasn’t been what it once was for as long as she’s been alive. We have to go back to pre-Reagan days to see anything remotely exemplary about the GOP. Maybe young people like her can really bring back the ‘Grand’ that has been lost. I hope so, it will make for a stronger America.

  6. G-STIR

    Nomo ‘yo …. ‘mofo moi

  7. 7 Ways the Koch Bros. Benefit from Corporate Welfare

    Mainstream America is finally getting to know the billionaire brothers backing the libertarian movement, thanks to a pair of dueling profiles in New York and The New Yorker. Now that we’ve heard about their charitable giving, David’s 240-foot mega-yacht and role as patrons of the Tea Party movement, it’s time to ask a more serious question: How libertarian are they?

    The short answer…not very.

    Charles and David Koch, the secretive billionaire brothers who own Koch Industries, the largest private oil company in America, have spent millions bankrolling free-market think tanks and pro-business politicians in order, as David Koch has put it, “to minimize the role of government, to maximize the role of private economy and to maximize personal freedoms.” But a closer look at their dealings reveals that for the past 35 years the brothers have never shied away from using government subsidies to maximize their own profits, even while endeavoring to limit government spending on anything else.

    • And one expects them to leave the money on the table? I don’t.

    • I certainly don’t expect them to leave the money on the table. They argue against those ‘benefits’ all day and still benefit from them.

    • paulasayles

      It is little wonder that the company’s fortunes grew soon after they became part of the machine which is the corporatocracy. The so-called “conservative” movement that started with the founding of John Birch, moved through induction at the Chicago School and grew with emergent business interests funding “think tanks” and media and politicians at all levels of government, was just a front for the rich to get richer and spit on the rest of us. They don’t love America, they don’t care about democracy and they don’t practice the religion that they claim to adhere to. The whole thing was just a business investment and all the people who bought in to the neo-con philosophy were just chumps and puppets.

      We have met the enemy-but it ain’t us.

  8. indypendent

    This was in Huffington Post and is about a man in Philadelphia willing to donate $1000 to charity for each unemployed person that is employed by a business.

    Just imagine how much more beneficial the Koch brothers’ millions could have been spent if they thought like this guy?

  9. tosmarttobegop

    I keep coming back to thinking about how the health care reform would have been different if they had been acting more like Republicans then Conservatives.

    There was a lot of money involved, a Republican looks to what is the problem that exist and what that money get for the dollars? There was enough money being spent to have gained a great deal toward better coverage and better health care.

    The Democratic had the right topic but lack the real focus needed to put the money to work in an effective manner. By them acting as Conservatives instead of Republicans they did not serve the country or the people well at all. There was a real need for claim and clear focus in that so that it would be the best outcome for all.

    But by acting as Conservatives, yes there will be a number of Democrats losing their jobs in the House.
    But by doing that the Cons show they were unworthy of governing.

    • paulasayles

      Unfortunately, tstbgop, I don’t think anyone’s heart was in the right place when it came to health care. There is a burgeoning need in the populace for affordable health care. What Obama and the Democrats gave us was Health Insurance Reform, not Health CARE reform. This benefitted the Hospitals, Doctors and will (it was assured in a conversation between two lawyers overheard last week) be a huge boon to the insurance companies.

      The problem, from a governance standpoint, was not that the people in this country can’t afford healthcare. The problem that was addressed is that many parts of the healthcare industry were losing money. Not that they were not making a profit, just that their profits could be SO much bigger. THAT is the problem that was addressed in the bill that was passed.

      Neither party has our best interests at heart, unfortunately. Until we stop being puppets of the left and the other sides stops being puppets of the right, we will all remain under the thumb of the corporatocracy.

      • Of course it was “Health Insurance Reform”; that, after all, is what is wanted, i.e., a reform on how the costs of medical care are paid. For there to be “Health Care Reform”, it is my opinion that such things as the use of paraprofessionals to deliver services, increasing the number of physicians serving in “family practice”, greater reliance on midwives, etc., would necessarily need to be considered. Yes, this would also include but not be limited to decisions on when heroic measures would not be offered, making cancer research more directed to management of the disease as a chronic disease rather than “finding a cure” for cancer (never going to happen across the board, imho), and organ transplantation decisions as to the recipients.

        Just how I see it.

      • paulasayles

        Right on.

  10. If you look at the first midterms after each president is elected, you see that the president’s party loses seats. This isn’t unprecedented and it won’t be record losses. Don’t let the conservatives or the media cause you to buy into the hype and hysteria. It looks ugly on the conservatives and we don’t need to join them. Always remember ‘karma.’ She really is a bitch.

    • That’s not the issue to me, fnord. The issue is “how many seats will the Dems lose”. Not as sanguine as you about not being record losses, time will tell. My rather ample gut says GOP definitely will control House, with a 70% chance to wrest a majority (not a supermajority) in the Senate.

      This might well work to the President’s advantage in 2012 (recalling reading about the 1948 election). Wondering what the modern equivalent of a “whistle stop” campaign is…

    • Do you need to look further than the 1994 mid-term elections?

      • Yes, fnord, I think we do.

      • Then explain to me what about the 1948 election you see as having relevance today. You’ve lost me (it isn’t a long path to lost for me).

      • HST was able to “run against Congress” in 1948, and come from behind to win. To do so, he was very aggressive in his proposals to Congress, inviting deadlock; and, he went “to the people” directly by the use of the “whistle stop” campaign (train trips, speaking directly to the people in all venues, large, small, and in between).

      • Well that sounds fun. It’s certainly a different world than Truman lived in. Words — whether true or not — spread in an instant today. Obama is good in campaign mode and has some talented campaigners to help him — both Clintons for instance.

  11. If the Republicans gain majorities in either the House or Senate, or both, they also gain responsibilities that go along with those majorities.

    Do you really think they have anything?

    They have “No,” and “Hell, no.”

    • Will there be enough leverage (with the Blue Dogs) to force extension of the “Bush tax cuts” for all, repeal/revise extensively “health care reform”, for just two examples? Stay tuned.

      • wicked

        Speaking of Boehner, I received an email today, asking me to join America Speaking Out. I’d say the Boner is confused.

        Let me share this wonderful email with you all.
        – – – –
        Dear friend:

        America is at an historic crossroads. Despite the mounting challenges facing our nation, Democrats in control of Congress are turning a deaf ear to the voices of the American people. Bent on runaway spending, failed “stimulus” policies, and ever-increasing federal regulation, it’s clear that Washington’s priorities do not reflect those of the American public.

        Fortunately, you can do something about it.

        Republicans are listening and want you to get involved in developing a new governing agenda. Since May, GOP members of Congress have been engaging the American people in a discussion of ideas at a new online forum, So far, your friends and neighbors have contributed 15,000 new ideas and voted more than 700,000 times! This unprecedented discussion will directly impact the shape of the new policy agenda for Congress.

        It’s not too late for you to get involved. To lend your voice to the thousands of others involved in changing our government for the better, click below. Choose a username and password and you can begin submitting ideas on issues like spending, jobs and the economy, American values, and national security.

        Republicans are changing the way Washington works and we want your help. Click below to speak out now!
        – – – – – –

        Should I speak out now? Whatdya say, folks?

        I’m more than happy to share the link with those of you who are eager to speak out. 🙂

      • Could you start by telling him it would be — America is at an a historic crossroads? I couldn’t get past the first sentence, but may find other critiques as I continue reading.

      • wicked

        fnord, I’m never sure about that “h” thing, so I checked the Purdue Owl website. Here’s what I found:

        Remember, using a or an depends on the sound that begins the next word. So…

        a + singular noun beginning with a consonant: a boy; a car; a bike; a zoo; a dog

        an + singular noun beginning with a vowel: an elephant; an egg; an apple; an idiot; an orphan

        a + singular noun beginning with a consonant sound: a user (sounds like ‘yoo-zer,’ i.e. begins with a consonant ‘y’ sound, so ‘a’ is used); a university; a unicycle

        In some cases where “h” is pronounced, such as “historical,” use an:
        An historical event is worth recording.

        In writing, “a historical event” is more commonly used.

        Because it was in writing, you’re right, he’s wrong. ROFL

    • We know it will be fraught with political games having more to do with election hopes than anything else.

      We know Americans are gonna get the shaft. It will be good to see the Republicans share the responsibility. Neither ‘side’ should be allowed to simply place blame and obstruct. It’s sad to even have the need of acknowledging there are ‘sides.’

      I can’t understand how anyone is willing to give another chance to people without ideas or solutions. Last I heard Boehner says he wants to cut spending to 2008 levels — no details at all, and extend current tax rates for two years. Gets us much deeper in debt even if both those goals are met.

    • How clever!

      USA just rose a flag in my Iwo Jimas… 😉

      This is just one of the reasons why we should have great confidence in our youth!

  12. Feds Win Round In Stem-Cell Funding Fight

    A federal appeals court in Washington has reversed a lower court’s temporary ban on government funding of research involving human embryonic.

    The decision came today after the Justice Department fired a volley Tuesday successfully arguing that District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth was mistaken in his reading of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment that bars federal funding of work that involves the destruction of human embryos.

    Here’s how the Justice Department put it:

    The [National Institutes of Health] has consistently interpreted this provision throughout the past decade to distinguish between funding for research that involves the creation or destruction of embryos (which is prohibited) and funding for research that involves the use of stem cell lines derived from embryos.