Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Nothing to see here..."

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Nothing to see here..."

    http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure....fographic.html
    (h/t Jessie)


  • #2
    Re: "Nothing to see here..."

    no more'n usual?

    "Magic Revolving Door" by Matt Wuerker, Politico





    ‎"We are still using leeches to practice health care" by Gary Huck





    "Too pig to fail" by Jim Morin





    "Good News, Bad News" by Randy Bish





    "The Republican vision of Medicare’s future" by David Horsey





    "Insurance Premiums" by Lisa Benson





    "Denied" by Mike Luckovich





    "Dying of Status Quo" by Bruce Beattie





    "Your $$$ At Work" by Matt Davies





    For every person who dies in a terrorist attack globally, 58 people die in the US due to lack of health care





    "Health Insurance Premiums" By Gary Varvel





    "Health care reform...or not" by Chan Lowe





    "Health Industry Enrichment" by Gary Wise and Lance Aldrich





    "Maddeningly simple" by Tom Tomorrow





    "Peripheral Vision" by Dan Wasserman





    "A Christmas Carol?" by David Fitzsimmons





    Three Little Pigs: The Compromise





    Political Cartoon: "Health Insurance Insurance" by Jen Sorensen





    "Choose Your Own Health Insurance Adventure!" by Jen Sorensen





    "You're making this way too hard" by David Horsey




    theres LOTS MORE of these: http://www.pnhp.org/resources/cartoons

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: "Nothing to see here..."

      'even less to see here'

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

      http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/

      http://readersupportednews.org/off-s...-door-politics

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...ROK_story.html

      http://www.pogo.org/investigations/g...ving-door.html

      and eye almost hesitate to keep bringing this one up, but its getting REALLY DIFFICULT TO IGNORE


      Originally posted by wsj

      How Congress Occupied Wall Street

      Politicians who arrive in Washington as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires. Why?

      By SARAH PALIN

      Mark Twain famously wrote, "There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." Peter Schweizer's new book, "Throw Them All Out," reveals this permanent political class in all its arrogant glory. (Full disclosure: Mr. Schweizer is employed by my political action committee as a foreign-policy adviser.)
      Mr. Schweizer answers the questions so many of us have asked. I addressed this in a speech in Iowa last Labor Day weekend. How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians' stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers'? I answered the question in that speech: Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.
      Enlarge Image


      Close



      Associated Press


      The money-making opportunities for politicians are myriad, and Mr. Schweizer details the most lucrative methods: accepting sweetheart gifts of IPO stock from companies seeking to influence legislation, practicing insider trading with nonpublic government information, earmarking projects that benefit personal real estate holdings, and even subtly extorting campaign donations through the threat of legislation unfavorable to an industry. The list goes on and on, and it's sickening.
      Astonishingly, none of this is technically illegal, at least not for Congress. Members of Congress exempt themselves from the laws they apply to the rest of us. That includes laws that protect whistleblowers (nothing prevents members of Congress from retaliating against staffers who shine light on corruption) and Freedom of Information Act requests (it's easier to get classified documents from the CIA than from a congressional office).
      The corruption isn't confined to one political party or just a few bad apples. It's an endemic problem encompassing leadership on both sides of the aisle. It's an entire system of public servants feathering their own nests.
      None of this surprises me. I've been fighting this type of corruption and cronyism my entire political career. For years Alaskans suspected that our lawmakers and state administrators were in the pockets of the big oil companies to the detriment of ordinary Alaskans. We knew we were being taken for a ride, but it took FBI wiretaps to finally capture lawmakers in the act of selling their votes. In the wake of politicos being carted off to prison, my administration enacted reforms based on transparency and accountability to prevent this from happening again.
      We were successful because we had the righteous indignation of Alaskan citizens on our side. Our good ol' boy political class in Juneau was definitely not with us. Business was good for them, so why would they want to end "business as usual"?
      The moment you threaten to strip politicians of their legal graft, they'll moan that they can't govern effectively without it. Perhaps they'll gravitate toward reform, but often their idea of reform is to limit the right of "We the people" to exercise our freedom of speech in the political process.
      I've learned from local, state and national political experience that the only solution to entrenched corruption is sudden and relentless reform. Sudden because our permanent political class is adept at changing the subject to divert the public's attention—and we can no longer afford to be indifferent to this system of graft when our country is going bankrupt. Reform must be relentless because fighting corruption is like a game of whack-a-mole. You knock it down in one area only to see it pop up in another.
      What are the solutions? We need reform that provides real transparency. Congress should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act like everyone else. We need more detailed financial disclosure reports, and members should submit reports much more often than once a year. All stock transactions above $5,000 should be disclosed within five days.
      We need equality under the law. From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest and insider-trading laws. Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it. (This should close the loophole of the blind trusts that aren't really blind because they're managed by family members or friends.)
      No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors. No gifts of IPO shares. No trading of stocks related to committee assignments. No earmarks where the congressman receives a direct benefit. No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office. No more revolving door, ever.
      This call for real reform must transcend political parties. The grass-roots movements of the right and the left should embrace this. The tea party's mission has always been opposition to waste and crony capitalism, and the Occupy protesters must realize that Washington politicians have been "Occupying Wall Street" long before anyone pitched a tent in Zuccotti Park.
      Ms. Palin, a former governor of Alaska, was the Republican nominee for vice president in 2008.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: "Nothing to see here..."

        Originally posted by doom&gloom View Post
        (I believe that's the definition of a corporate state - the polite word for it)


        everyday . . .

        a fait accompli . . . .

        (set to music)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: "Nothing to see here..."

          Do we agree that Palin as a good interview candidate?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: "Nothing to see here..."

            Originally posted by EJ View Post
            Based upon this article it would appear that she "gets it".

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: "Nothing to see here..."

              Originally posted by Raz View Post
              Based upon this article it would appear that she "gets it".
              We have to consider the real possibility that she has been made to appear to be other than who she really is because she may in fact be able to "do something about it."

              One way to find out is to subject her an iTulip interview.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: "Nothing to see here..."

                Originally posted by EJ View Post
                We have to consider the real possibility that she has been made to appear to be other than who she really is because she may in fact be able to "do something about it."

                One way to find out is to subject her an iTulip interview.
                Bullseye!

                I'd be quite keen to read an iTulip interview of Sarah Palin.

                You can't ghost write through an interview and I'd be far more confident of balance from iTulip than from any mass media channel perspective.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: "Nothing to see here..."

                  I think over the past few years Palin has had her 'education' in reality. Does she 'get it'? Maybe. However I see no reason for he position herself against the intersts of the GOP machine, and she is certainly not electable. Maybe her Martenson personality is her new money-making schtick?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: "Nothing to see here..."

                    Originally posted by doom&gloom View Post
                    I think over the past few years Palin has had her 'education' in reality. Does she 'get it'? Maybe. However I see no reason for he position herself against the intersts of the GOP machine, and she is certainly not electable. Maybe her Martenson personality is her new money-making schtick?
                    When she was John McCain's running mate in 2008, my opinion of Palin at the time was that she seemed remarkably stupid. The various articles attributed to her over the past few years appear to come from someone who is actually clueful and it makes me wonder if they were ghost-written. I'm still of the impression that she's just not very smart.

                    As for the Wall Street Journal article, I am highly amused that she is writing about Congressional corruption considering she allied herself with John McCain, one of the Keating Five.

                    An iTulip interview would be most interesting to determine which of the Palins is the real one: the perceived idiot during the 2008 elections or the person writing articles like the one for the WSJ.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: "Nothing to see here..."

                      Originally posted by Milton Kuo View Post
                      When she was John McCain's running mate in 2008, my opinion of Palin at the time was that she seemed remarkably stupid. The various articles attributed to her over the past few years appear to come from someone who is actually clueful and it makes me wonder if they were ghost-written. I'm still of the impression that she's just not very smart.

                      As for the Wall Street Journal article, I am highly amused that she is writing about Congressional corruption considering she allied herself with John McCain, one of the Keating Five.

                      An iTulip interview would be most interesting to determine which of the Palins is the real one: the perceived idiot during the 2008 elections or the person writing articles like the one for the WSJ.
                      I concur. The only way to find out is to do a one on one interview which leaves no room for ghost-writers giving answers (same for the famous in-ear communication devices used by some politicians).

                      My money is on a ghost-writer having written the WSJ piece. There's just too much of a disconnect in intellect between what she writes here and the way I perceive her in live video interviews. Her campaign team has figured out which line she should walk to get a stable source of votes if the opportunity arises. After being elected into power, much of the so-called good intentions will fade away. Much like Obama in this respect?
                      Last edited by FrankL; 07-25-12, 05:01 AM. Reason: clarifications
                      engineer with little (or even no) economic insight

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: "Nothing to see here..."

                        Originally posted by EJ View Post
                        We have to consider the real possibility that she has been made to appear to be other than who she really is because she may in fact be able to "do something about it."

                        One way to find out is to subject her an iTulip interview.
                        Great that EJ keeps an open mind. I think an interview would be quite interesting.

                        Of her suggestions, some are definitely practical, but I am not sure that others could be expressed in law or enforced. I noticed she did not mention campaign or election reform.

                        We need equality under the law. From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest and insider-trading laws. Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it. (This should close the loophole of the blind trusts that aren't really blind because they're managed by family members or friends.)

                        No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors. No gifts of IPO shares. No trading of stocks related to committee assignments. No earmarks where the congressman receives a direct benefit. No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office. No more revolving door, ever.
                        No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. --I don't think this would matter. They would just discuss amounts during session, and transfer money when session ends.

                        No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors.--- A good idea, it would require absolute transparency (for life) of a congressman's income, property and professional life. Would that work? Also, is there a good way to legally define a "sweetheart" deal? If I bought some rental real estate from a bank, and the price seemed low to some people, would that be a "sweetheart" deal?

                        No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office.---again a good idea, but is there a legal definition of "lobbyist"? and a way to prevent ex-congressman from working in the military, finance, medical, agricultural industries? There is so much government involvement in the economy that practically every sector has conflict of interest, so there is almost no work that an ex-congressman could do!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: "Nothing to see here..."

                          Originally posted by Milton Kuo View Post
                          When she was John McCain's running mate in 2008, my opinion of Palin at the time was that she seemed remarkably stupid. The various articles attributed to her over the past few years appear to come from someone who is actually clueful and it makes me wonder if they were ghost-written. I'm still of the impression that she's just not very smart.

                          As for the Wall Street Journal article, I am highly amused that she is writing about Congressional corruption considering she allied herself with John McCain, one of the Keating Five.

                          An iTulip interview would be most interesting to determine which of the Palins is the real one: the perceived idiot during the 2008 elections or the person writing articles like the one for the WSJ.
                          I no longer think Palin is stupid. My diagnosis is a case of appalling ignorance. I believe McCain's choice of her to be VP was indeed stupid.

                          Speaking of McCain, the Keating episode was just one reason to not vote for him. The other, and for me the more important reason, is found here:

                          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ft-behind.html

                          No matter what the Clintons and their supporters might say, character does count.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: "Nothing to see here..."

                            Originally posted by Polish_Silver View Post
                            .... There is so much government involvement in the economy that practically every sector has conflict of interest, so there is almost no work that an ex-congressman could do!
                            therein lies the REAL problem.
                            why the first .gov reform needs to be the elimination of the job title 'career politician'from .gov
                            and why term limits for congress is The Only Answer.

                            however dcarrigg had a good point on another post awhile back that perhaps what we need is more
                            effective 'career buracrats', (vs more of them) that wouldnt be subjected to (nor participate in) electioneering/politicking.
                            since at least that way they could be FIRED if/WHEN they didnt follow the rules (unlike congress/union members).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: "Nothing to see here..."

                              Originally posted by EJ View Post
                              We have to consider the real possibility that she has been made to appear to be other than who she really is because she may in fact be able to "do something about it."

                              One way to find out is to subject her an iTulip interview.
                              +1

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X