Author Les Leopold sums it up nicely, including the fact that TARP is only the tip of iceberg regarding taxpayer money being poured into Wall Street coffers. Merry Christmas to the big Wall Street banks, who work hard to . . . someone please remind me how these big banks to make the world a better place--what do they do for the economy or for productivity? Please tell me something more convincing than free market fundamentalism.
I thought I knew the locations of most of the world's countries, but I was humbled by this addictive fast-paced game called Globetrotter. It's lots of fun, but don't hit this link, because you'll end up spending a lot more time than you intended. I know it's just a program, but I enjoy getting the applause when I do a good job. Note to myself: Study the countries of Africa better.
I received the following mass emailing from Jane Hamscher of Firedoglake. How bad is the current bill?
Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations -- whether you want to or not. If you refuse to buy the insurance, you'll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS After being forced to pay thousands in premiums for junk insurance, you can still be on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses. Massive restriction on a woman's right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court. Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays. [more . . .]
Bill Moyers, Robert Kuttner and Matt Taibbi had a vigorous discussion focusing on the health care "reform" and Wall Street "reform": Moyer's take-home statement from the video:
Truth is, our capitol's being looted, republicans are acting like the town rowdies, the sheriff is firing blanks, and powerful Democrats in Congress are in cahoots with the gang that's pulling the heist. This is not capitalism at work. It's capital. Raw money, mounds of it, buying politicians and policy as if they were futures on the hog market.Robert Kuttner:
[T]hose of us who consider ourselves progressives invested so much in this remarkable figure, Barack Obama. And we read our own hopes into him. We saw him as a potentially great president. We saw this as a potentially transformative moment, I certainly did, where he could've chosen to be the kind of president Roosevelt was. And it turns out that's not who is characteralogically and that's not how he chose to play the moment.Matt Taibbi:
[T]his individual mandate that's going to force people to become customers of private health insurance companies, the Democrats are going to end up owning that policy and it's going to be extremely unpopular and it's going to be theirs for a generation. It's going to be an albatross around the neck of this party . . . The Democrats are in exactly the same position that the Republicans were in once the Iraq War turned bad. All the Republicans have to do now is sit back and watch the Democrats make a disaster out of this health care effort. And they're going to gain political capital whether they're in the right or not. And I think it's a very- it's a terrible thing for the party.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an impressive piece of legislation, but it would never pass today, certainly not in anything like the form in which it currently exists. Note: The actual Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which can be found here) is only 56 pages long (double spaced in 12 point Times Roman font). It contains clearly written provisions throughout its ten titles. For example, see the following language from Title II, SEC. 201.:
(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
But what would it have been like if present-day legislative techniques had been used by those attempting to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Most significantly, using modern strategies means that the proponents would be much more interested in passing legislation that sounded like it prevented discrimination, than passing legislation that actually prevented discrimination. Here are some specific differences. If the 2009 legislative techniques were being used back in 1964:-The Civil Rights Act would have been thousands of pages long, so long that most legislators would not be well-versed regarding its terms.
-Key deliberations and debate regarding the Civil Rights Act would have been conducted entirely in secret.
-The Civil Rights Act would've been filled with terms that the citizens themselves would not understand the effect of the bill. If asked about the bill, most American citizens would say something like, "I think it has something to do with discrimination but I'm not quite sure what the new law allows or prohibits.