http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

In some quarters the last Obama/McCain debate is being called the worst in history.  It was certainly the most boring.  Even the much ballyhooed Biden/Palen event was little more than an exercise in damage control and image management by tacit agreement.

The yokels who constitute the Republican base are finally wising up to the fact that this election is a joke, and seem willing to blame anyone but themselves.  They demand "tough talk" from McCain, and even get it from his accessorized pit bull on occasion, but they know not whereof they speak.  All that these Republican wowsers are asking for is more ad hominum attacks against Obama, nothing substantive.  How could they demand anything substantive when the fight for substance was already lost during the Republican primary.  It never occurs to them to ask for anything ideological, because they are (to borrow an epithet from the Randians) totally "concrete-bound."

Think of that for a minute!  With the biggest financial crisis since 1933 on our hands, the only thing that the Republican base can agree on is Obama's connection with Ayers!  Now, I'm not minimizing what Obama's past association with Ayers and others of a more or less leftist-to-communist ilk indicates about the basic ideological preferences of the man who is almost certain to be the next president of the United States.  But there is nothing to be done about it at this point, and furthermore Obama long ago decided that "Paris is worth a mass" switching from radical leftist to Fabian socialist...a move that allowed him to buddy up to the financial elite.

But more importantly, we're not in Kansas anymore Dorothy!  The way the economy is going an increasing number of Americans are going to be attracted, rather than repelled, by Obama's lurid radical past.  Its pitchfork time and radical populism is on the agenda again.  The tragedy is that when America lurches left, as it is almost sure to do, it will be through a combination of fiat and stealth...not reasoned political discourse and decision.

There will be no injustice if Obama trounces McCain in November.  Obama has worked harder for the job as well as having a better temperament for it.  The tragedy is the the political process has been short-circuited by a combination of party bosses and media moguls.  In the Democratic and Republican primaries, whenever it seemed as if there might be some substantive discussion of issues, these were quickly sidetracked by matters of style  and personality.  Obama certainly does have a kind of  agenda, but he was able to triumph only by keeping nine-tenths of it (like the proverbial iceberg) out of sight.  Democrats, awed by his youth and his race, were not inclined to question him on specifics.

McCain, on the other hand, never had any specifics to offer in the first place.  He has always been a military man, who's fit into the mufti of politics is as painful to watch as his stiff walk in a business suit.  No doubt the Keating five episode soured him on any deep cognitive involvement with questions of economics.  So during the era which lasted from 9/11/01 to last month he hunkered down in his comfort zone as a loyal representative of the military-industrial complex.  That has all changed now, to such an extent that one begins to wonder if he even wants the office that he is running for any more.  I know that sounds incredible, but numerous slips of the tongue and body language would seem to indicate it.  To an ardent Black Republican supporter he replies "You are more likely to be rewarded in heaven than on earth."  True of us all hopefully...but hardly the sort of thing that anyone in their right mind would say stumping for the highest office of the land!  But then of course, its never been entirely clear that McCain is in his right mind...which is all the more reason why those who nominated him as the Republican candidate richly deserve an Obama landslide.

So has it come to that?  Will the anger and fear among the American electorate be channeled into the creation of a United Socialist States of America?  If we are to have demagoguery, can't we at least get a clash of visions and a choice before going under?  Are there any minor party contenders who could make a break for it when the Republican party implodes?  And make no mistake about it, at this moment the Republican party is every bit as sound as Wall Street...perhaps more so.

One interesting phenomena is that recent polls have shown that when minor parties are factored in they take more votes away from McCain than Obama.  This even applies to Nader for some reason, although I am not sure that it applies to the Greens.  Of course there is Bob Barr, who might take enough votes away from McCain to swing Georgia to Obama, much in the way that minor party candidates are already eroding McCain's support in Florida.

Of course eroding McCain's support as a protest move is one thing, providing a viable alternative is something else again.  As I have mentioned previously, Chuck Baldwin has the true voice of a populist...and if Chuck were to unleash the kind of rhetoric in a national forum that he usually reserves for kerygmatics people would be stunned into the realization that they had another William Jennings Bryan on their hands.  So far this hasn't happened, partially due to obstacles set up by the MSM, and (this is just a strong suspicion on my part) perhaps due to the fact that the amateurish and divided Constitution party hasn't been able to put together the kind of human and financial resources which are necessary to sustain a serious run for national office.

So the choice for anyone who wants to see some sort of alternative is to act now and come out with strong support for their favored third party.  Either that or pull the covers over your head and not get out of bed until Inauguration day.

Last month, a report from the council said the most globalized industries in the United States, such as manufacturing, agriculture, and mining, saw cumulative growth of 38.4 percent over the past decade, just over half the 66.8 percent growth of the entire US economy. Industries unaffected by global trade, such as healthcare, construction, and personal services, grew 73 percent. “When you see that our most globalized sectors have lagged behind the economy as a whole, that tells me that our globalization policies have failed the economy,” Tonelson said.

Pete Murphy might be right when he points out protectionism may be exactly what our economy needs to get back on track.

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/establishment_messiah/

The Senate Intelligence Committee is examining allegations by two former US military linguists that the super-secret National Security Agency routinely eavesdropped on the private telephone calls of American military officers, journalists and aid workers.

NSA interceptors purportedly shared some intercepts of highly personal conversations, including "phone sex."

If the allegations are true, they could re-ignite a political firestorm over the administrations post-Sept. 11 eavesdropping operations and its efforts to collect vast quantities of data about American's tax, medical and travel records; credit card purchases; e-mails and other information.

... Bush and other senior officials have repeatedly asserted that after the Sept. 11 attacks; the NSA only monitored the private communications of Americans who were suspected of links to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups without court orders.

The allegations follow the release Tuesday of a study by a government advisory group that questions how useful communications intercepts and another technique known as data mining are at ferreting out terrorist plots.

"The information sought by analysts must be filtered out of the huge quantity of data available the needle in the haystack problem," says [the] two-year, 352-page study by the National Research Council for the Department of Homeland Security. "Terrorist groups will make calculated efforts to conceal their identity and mask their behaviors, and will use various strategies such as encryption, code words, and multiple identities to obfuscate the data they are generating and exchanging," the report says.

"Even under the pressure of threats as serious as terrorism, the privacy rights and civil liberties that are the cherished core values of our nation must not be destroyed," the report warns.

via Miami Herald: Did US govt eavescrop on Americans phone calls?

The reason Michael Moore's movie Sicko was so powerful was not because of the uninsured in this country, but because it highlighted the obstacles of the insured.

Lets be honest folks, much of the health care inflation is directly attributable to programs like Medicaid and Badger Care.  The government regularly reimburses  between 60% and 80% with the rest of the cost being passed on to private insurers.  Obama's plan of increasing these programs along with closing the "non care" loopholes, will no doubt dramatically increase health care inflation.  Government loves these funding schemes because the increased cost is in the private sector and not the tax base.

I must admit there is part of me that likes the McCain proposal. Obama's reminds me of the fool who finds himself in a hole but keeps digging, McCain reminds me of the idiot in the hole who tries to blow himself out of it with dynamite.   Ironically, McCain might get us where we need to be for meaningful health care reform quicker than Obama.

All in all I think the McCain - Obama health care plans are a wash.  Yes, McCain will tax your health benefits but the biggest cost will be those above $50,000.  On the other hand, increasing  the government insurance programs along with service mandates will no doubt create health care inflation around the same level as McCain's tax increase.  Both plans will dramatically increase the uninsured over the next four years.  If you leave the public sector (its being felt there too), the plans being offered is just health care insurance on paper. When you add up the high deductibles, fees, co pays, it becomes financially unbearable to accept your employer's health care proposal.  More and more Americans will simply opt for crossing their fingers  or offering an extra payer to the health care saint.

I personally find Obama very frustrating. Poll after poll demonstrates the American people want bold healthcare reform, and he simply calls us extremists.

"Nyrup, der i dag er formand for de europæiske socialdemokrater, vandt foran en finne og en belgier, kåres på baggrund af hans indsats i arbejdet med at udarbejde en rapport om kapitalfondes – en rapport, der blev vedtaget med stort flertal for to uger siden blandt de 785 parlamentarikere. Det skriver politiken.dk.

Nyrup har de senere år gjort det til sin europapolitiske mærkesag at forhindre kapitalfonde i at opkøbe virksomheder efter behag, gældsætte dem, og så sælge dem videre efter forgodtbefindende. Rapporten baner vejen for et indgreb mod kapital- og hedgefonde i Europa. Det er nu Kommissionen, der skal fremsætte en lovpakke om emnet."

Og ikke nok med at kapitalfondene er grådige - de er også skyld i den aktuelle finanskrise! En bizar konklusion, baseret på en sammenhæng som formentlig kun eksisterer i Nyrups eget hoved. Logikken må formodes at have været noget i denne stil: "Den nuværende finanskrise er ansporet af risikable gældsinstrumenter, kapitalfonde har noget med meget gæld at gøre - ergo er kapitalfondene ansvarlige for finanskrisen.":

"Spørger man Nyrup, bærer virksomhederne også en del af ansvaret for den igangværende kreditkrise i kraft af deres tendens til at ophobe gæld på kreditmarkedet. Det bliver der nu sat grænser for, og det glæder Nyrup sig over.

"Ellers kommer det til at gå galt en gang til og en gang til og en gang til. Og hver gang vi har en finanskrise er, dem, der kommer til at betale regningen, dem som bro i huse, og dem som risikerer at blive arbejdsløse," siger Nyrup til DR Nyheder."

Min personlige erfaring med kapitalfondene, eller den personlige erfaring jeg har læst mig til gennem rapporter, er at i langt størstedelen af tilfældene er der tale om win-win-situationer både for kapitalfondene, og også for de opkøbte virksomheder. Men herhjemme har vi jo sagen om den nationale "stolthed", TDC, der havnede i kløerne på en kapitalfond til en endnu uvis skæbne, så det er jo ikke svært at overbevise folk om deres iboende ondskab. Man kommer langt med anekdotisk argumentation i et demokrati - specielt i Europæiske.

Man skal heller ikke glemme at et af de væsentlige argumenter for brugen af kapitalfonde, er at de reducerer kapitalomkostninger og transaktionsomkostninger ved at koncentrere ejerskab og benytte gæld fremfor aktiekapital, der i mange tilfælde kan være en billigere måde at rejse kapital (både pga. transaktionsomkostninger, men også pga. de, politisk fastsatte, ironisk nok, skattestrukturer), og samtidig resulterer i et højt afkast på egenkapitalen og dermed stærke incitamenter til ledelsen. Men det er naturligvis topledelsen der primært vinder på det her, og det er jo nok her roden til den udbredte aversion imod fondene skal findes: traditionel misundelse og smålighed.

by Cynthia McKinney, Green Party Presidential Nominee

At the precise moment when we couldn't imagine it getting worse, it does. After all, the Democrats, since they acquired majority status in the Congress, delivered funding for George Bush's wars several times. They authorized retroactive immunity for telecoms that helped Bush's Administration illegally spy on us. And they never really considered any alternatives to the basic bailout wish list given to them by Bush and his Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson.

Sadly, I must say that this failure on the part of the Democratic leadership is by far the greatest perfidy of the Democrats yet. I shudder to think what betrayal of the Constitution and the people of this country yet awaits us. I am forced to ask, "What do they stand for?"

I think they have shown us time and time again what they stand for, what their values are, and that they are willing to leave the people behind in their quest to acquiesce to what Bush's base asks for. And remember, Bush told us that his base were the haves and the have mores! So, if the Democratic leadership is more loyal to them than they are to the working people in this country, then a new political alignment of historical proportions is taking effect that the working people of this country must recognize. By their policy choices, it should now be clear that the Democratic leadership in Congress must be removed and a political party that reflects the people's values must be built. Not only do the people need a party of their own, it should now be clear to a vast number of people that the people in this country need a movement that places our values on the political agenda. This was what I said in my remarks accepting the Green Party's nomination as their candidate for President of the United States.

In 2000, when there was clear evidence that the election had been tampered with, and that particularly, black voters had been disenfranchised, the Democratic leadership did nothing to recognize and correct this fact. Criminal behavior was met with de facto acceptance, a failure to investigate, and ultimate acquiescence by the Democratic leadership.

Through my Congressional office, on my own initiative, I investigated and discovered one of the mechanisms used to disenfranchise voters and put my findings on the Congressional Record. Sadly, because of inaction by the Democratic Congress, the basic mechanism used by the Republicans to steal the vote in 2000 could, in fact, be used today to further disenfranchise voters. Further, one million black votes across our country were not even counted, 78,000 of them in Florida alone.

What kind of election is it when the votes don't get counted!

In addition, in the late 1990s, electronic voting machines were introduced into the U.S. election architecture. From that time until today, where they are used, voters and inexperienced or untrained election staff have had to cope with machine meltdowns; screen freezes; dead and dying batteries in the middle of the voting process; deployment of untested machines, particularly in the South, that failed repeatedly due to heat; vote flipping (usually in only one direction); ballots that don't list all the candidates without manipulation of the machine""which could be problematic for some voters; incorrect ballots being displayed on the machines so that voters are allowed to vote in elections for which they are not eligible; machine sleepovers in insecure places where they could be tampered with; meaningless recounts in the absence of a paper trail where only bits and bytes previously entered can be counted; and the absence of a paper ballot that allows for accountability and transparency during and after an election.

Later, it was learned that these machines were not only hackable, but that the instrument used by the voter, the PCMCIA card, could be programmed to change the outcome of the election! Some of the machines were found to have wireless adaptations that opened the election to an additional level of insecurity due to wireless capabilities in everyday blackberries, treos, and other handheld devices.

With all of these defects known, electronic pollbooks were allowed to become an additional part of the election architecture and they produced an additional layer of disfranchisement when incorrect voter information was loaded into them and voters had no means to contest it. In too many cases that took place in my own 2006 election, voters were turned away from the polls only because the pollbooks contained incorrect information!

Elections in this country are now firmly in the grips of electronic voting machine technicians, inexperienced and poorly trained official poll workers, and computer companies using secret software. Sadly, the Democratic leadership has done nothing to eliminate this potential source of fraud, even in this--an election year!

In 2004, the Democratic nominee, John Kerry, promised that the black vote was not going to be disenfranchised as it had been in 2000. John Kerry conceded the election the day after Election Day, even as reports were coming in of massive black voter disenfranchisement. It was the Green Party and the Libertarian Party that went to Ohio and sorted out exactly what happened and pressed for criminal prosecution of those guilty of election fraud. Sadly, in 2004, after the experience of 2000, an estimated three million votes were not counted.

The Green Party's Bob Fitrakis in Ohio is sounding the alarm again for this year's election. Some blogs like Bradblog, and organizations like Black Box Voting continue to sound the alarm now, even more urgently, and press for election integrity.

Last week I became the first Presidential candidate to sign the StandingForVoters.org pledge to not concede the election unless all votes are counted, and all challenges to the results have been adequately made. We really need the Democrats to sign such a pledge because they have caved in the past two Presidential elections.

In addition to that, the Democrats now have the power of the majority. They are in control of the Congress. And the way the Constitution is written, power flows up from Capitol Hill to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue--not the other way around. But even while in control, the Democrat leadership has done nothing to prepare the way for election integrity in this election. Even in the face of massive preparations for theft again by the Republicans through the use of the same techniques used in 2000 and in 2004 and adding to them voter caging (removing targeted voters from the voter rolls) and enforcement of new voter ID laws. Even judges appointed by Democrats have helped to thwart citizen legal action on behalf of election integrity!

It should be clear that even in an election year, there are serious issues that should be on the table; the Democrats control the Congress and can make public policy to their liking, reflecting their values.

And that's where I want to begin my discussion of the bailout.

Nancy Pelosi is the third most powerful individual in the United States government as Speaker of the House--third in line for the Presidency of the United States. She controls when bills are scheduled for consideration in the House of Representatives, or even whether they are considered or not. The people of this country and her colleagues in the House gave her this position because the people hunger for change and they thought that the Democratic Party would deliver that change to them.

The people of this country want peace, not war and occupation; justice, not fraud; community, not hooliganism. And so, the people of this country voted the Democratic Party into majority status to attain all of that, public policy that reflects their values. Nancy Pelosi, by virtue of her position, has been dealt a royal flush.

By now, Nancy Pelosi could have used that winning hand to stop the funding for war and occupation--$720 million every day--and decided, instead, to subsidize education so no university student graduates one hundred thousand dollars in debt just because he or she wanted an education.

Pelosi could have insisted on reflecting the people's values and our Constitution by repealing the Patriot Acts, the Secret Evidence Act, and the Military Commissions Act. But she did not.

She could have used that royal flush to provide a single-payer, Medicare-for-all type of health-care system for this country, consistent with the wishes of the Democratic Party's base, particularly organized labor and an increasing number of health care professionals. But she did not.

In light of the tremendously important election this year, she could have insisted on enacting some measure of election integrity to prevent another election being held where the announced outcome is truly in doubt. But she did not.

She could have taken her seat at the table as the one player in the room with the winning hand, but she did not.

Instead, she assumed the position of the beautiful girl in the short skirt holding the platter of drinks, serving the men at the table. She could have been the leader and spokesperson for us all, but she is not.

It is clear that our country is at a financial crossroad, and the times call for courageous, daring acts on behalf of the people from those gifted with leadership positions. That, too, is not happening.

From the myriad writings that I have read, including those of former Comptroller General David Walker, it is clear that the financial status of our country is subject to get worse before it gets better. The Bush-Pelosi- Reid bailout exacerbates the situation because the fundamentals of the economy were not dealt with in what is perhaps the most massive transfer of wealth in our modern history. And while the money could have gone to people in need and for programs contributing to the public good, preparing our country for the future, it did not.

I published two papers outlining 14 points that the Congress could have implemented even without a bailout, but most certainly should have implemented with one. The second paper, written on my son's birthday, was entitled, "A Birthday Gift for a Generation: A U.S. Financial System of Our Own." 

Taken in conjunction with the Power to the People Committee's platform available on the campaign website at

http://votetruth08.com/index php/resources/ campaignplatform, those points are as follows:

1. Enactment of a foreclosure moratorium now before the next phase of ARM interest rate increases take effect;

2. elimination of all ARM mortgages and their renegotiation into 30- or 40-year loans;

3. establishment of new mortgage lending practices to end predatory and discriminatory practices;

4. establishment of criteria and construction goals for affordable housing;

 

5. redefinition of credit and regulation of the credit industry so that discriminatory practices are completely eliminated;

6. full funding for initiatives that eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in home ownership;

 

7. recognition of shelter as a right according to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to which the U.S. is a signatory so that no one sleeps on U.S. streets;

8. full funding of a fund designed to cushion the job loss and provide for retraining of those at the bottom of the income scale as the economy transitions;

9. close all tax loopholes and repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of income earners; and

10. fairly tax corporations, denying federal subsidies to those who relocate jobs overseas repeal NAFTA;

11. Appointment of former Comptroller General David Walker to fully audit all recipients of taxpayer cash infusions, including JP Morgan, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG, and to monitor their trading activities into the future;

12. elimination of all derivatives trading;

13. nationalization of the Federal Reserve and the establishment of a federally-owned, public banking system that makes credit available for small businesses, homeowners, manufacturing operations, renewable energy and infrastructure investments; and

14. criminal prosecution of any activities that violated the law, including conflicts of interest that led to the current crisis.

Michael Ruppert recently wrote on his blog:

"There is no victory until the paradigm is broken. Until we change the way money works, we change nothing. Right now, the entire economic paradigm of infinite growth is vulnerable, weak, and exposed. The dribble being offered by Obama and McCain only exposes the fact that everything is broken; that the system itself is the enemy."

Everyone can see that the system is broken: a system that was not created to serve the people of this country. It was totally within Pelosi's purview and that of the Democratic Party to change all of that, but they didn't. In fact, I'm shocked by some of my former colleagues who voted for this bill, particularly the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus who supported this. With this vote, and the failures of the Democratic Party up to now, it should be patently clear that the Democratic Party cannot reflect our values because it is in complete obeisance to someone else's.

The elected leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties should resign.

That's why I can hear Kenny Rogers's sweet voice wafting through the air now:

"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,

Power to the People!

It is so easy to become overwhelmed by the majority of Democrats who are bought and paid for by corporate America. If it was the Savings and Loan crisis in the 80's or Freddie and Fannie today, the Democrats are knee deep in the Big Muddy. The worst culprit in this whole fiasco is Obama himself. 12 members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted no on the first vote, but after intense pressure (threats) from Obama switched on the second vote. Obama bought this bailout with all the political capital he had, and if it does not work he is 100% responsible.

It is so easy to become outright depressed as far as the Democrats are concerned. While there are plenty bad apples out there, there are some good ones too. Marcy Kaptur talking about banks "crying for their mommy" is a real gem. In order to give the economic patriots there due I created an Economic Populists page on this site. Clicking any of the heroes on the page takes you to a contribution page. For the Democrats I created an ActBlue page dedicated to Economic Populists.

For many, myself included, the bailout was a wakeup call. Someday we will look back and proclaim Remember the Bailout. I encourage visitors to support all the canidates on the Economic populist page irregardless of party affiliation. As more Economic Patriots emerge in the next month or so I will add them to my Economic Populist page.

Gwen Ifill's first question to the candidates at Thursday night's Vice Presidential Debate concerned their thoughts about the $700 Billion Congressional rescue (or bailout) bill, which had not yet passed. Republican Governor Sarah Palin (net worth $1.2 Million; 2007 income $230,000) responded:

PALIN: One thing that Americans do at this time, also, though, is let's commit ourselves just every day American people, Joe Six Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again . . . .

The Governor's running mate, John McCain. really loves Joe Six-Pack. Senator McCain's wife Cindy controls the third-largest Anheuser-Busch distributorship in the country. Joe Six-Pack bought multi-millionaires John and Cindy McCain all their houses, cars, a fat investment portfolio and a private jet, 12 ounces at a time.

Of course, Anheuser-Busch doesn't just use those profits to make Cindy McCain rich. It creates thousands of jobs -- in Belgium and Brazil, for Jan- and João- Six-Pack and new multi-national corporate owner InBev.

Image by Mike Licht. Download a copy here. Creative Commons license; credit Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com.

The "A" logo is a registered trademark of Anheuser-Busch/InBev and is used here under the satire provisions of the Fair Use clause.

Septembrie 2008: Emotionati, liberalii, social democratii si liberal democratii ii mai dau bugetarului inca trei lei. Analistul economic zice  ca mai bine aia trei lei erau investiti in productia de mere si astfel Ana ar fi putut produce patru mere sau chiar cinci. Insa PSD, PNL si PD-L il acuza de tradare, cinism si ura fata de oamenii simpli si amarati, din popor. Analistul mai incearca sa zica ceva dar vocea ii e acoperita de zbieretele isterice ale social si liberal democratilor si de hohotele de plans emotionat ale liberalilor. Sustinatorii celor trei partide isi fac calcule: cine va castiga, cine va pierde, cate voturi au mai ramas, cate mai trebuie etc

Noiembrie 2008: Ana produce tot trei mere. Bugetarul are noua lei. Le cumpara, platind cate trei lei pe fiecare mar. Zambeste tamp. E fericit ca acuma poate sa-si ia acelasi numar de mere dar cu bani mai multi. Social democratii, liberal democratii, liberalii si fanii lor sunt deasemenea fericiti. Au intrat in acelasi Parlament, dar cu de doua ori mai putine voturi decat data trecuta. La oferta.

Decembrie 2008: Ana produce doua mere. Banii cu care ar fi trebuit sa-l produca pe al treilea trebuie sa-i dea la buget, ca sa aiba bugetarul zece lei. Cu acestia bugetarul cumpara cele doua mere. In consecinta, bugetarul e din ce in ce mai fericit. Acum are zece lei iar doua mere de cinci lei sunt categoric mai delicioase decat cinci mere de doi lei. Ana isi baga picioarele, da faliment si se reprofileaza pe capsuni in Spania.

UPDATE. "Ana are mere" a ajuns pe primul loc in topul articolelor wordpress de la noi si pe locul 55 in topul general, la mare concurenta cu Obama. Daca faceam reclama pe blog va dati seama cat ar fi costat minutul la detergenti? Va dadeam Magda Catone pana va apuca plansul si ma si imbogateam. Cu alte cuvinte, legea de marire a salariilor profesorilor mi-ar fi marit si mie veniturile, poate chiar cu mai mult de 50%! (desi ar fi trebuit sa-i cedez o cota-parte si lui Ioan T Morar, al carui blog a fost principalul referrer).

La finalul filmuletului, autorul ii indeamna pe americani sa mearga la vot si sa-l voteze pe McCain. In lipsa de idei, va indemn si eu sa mergeti la vot si sa-l votati pe McCain. Iar ultimul sa stinga lumina.

Via Nenea Lars

Video postat de TheMouthPeace

In consecinta, avand in vedere ca urmatorii patru ani sunt pierduti si ca nu se mai poate face nimic (nu se poate inventa un partid politic peste noapte iar cele actuale sunt nereformabile si inutilizabile) trebuie sa speram intr-o refacere a dreptei in afara acestor partide. Fara Tariceanu, Vosganian, Adomnitei, Rusanu, Bogdan Olteanu, Norica, Crin, Fenechiu, David, Boc, Stolojan, Valeriu Stoica, Buda, Ioan Oltean, Cezar Preda, Blaga, Tabara, Negoita etc etc

Pentru a evita confuziile, PSD, PNL si PD-L ar trebui sa fuzioneze. Ne-am saturat sa votam si dupa vot sa ne dam seama ca, indiferent pe ce sigla si initiale am pus stampila, am votat acelasi partid unic.

PS. Se spune ca Monica Macovei ar face diferenta fiindca il baga in puscarie pe Nastase. Dar pe cei care fura legal, prin taxe, impozite, inflatie, lipsa investitiilor, pomeni electorale, cine ii baga in puscarie? Pe pesedisti, penelisti si pedelisti, in intregul lor, cine ii baga in puscarie?

LAST EDIT Mi se pare amuzanta discutia despre pierderile de imagine, reale sau posibile, ale PNL, PD-L, Tariceanu sau Basescu. Toate astea sunt irelevante, ca si personajele implicate. Singurul lucru relevant, si de care se vobreste prea putin, sunt pierderile noastre. Vorbim despre ani pierduti, oportunitati pierdute, cariere, bani, civilizatie, dezvoltare etc Vom continua sa traim intr-o tara subdezvoltata si sa-i suportam jegul si jegurile zi de zi, inca cel putin patru ani de acum incolo. Si nu sutn numai pierderile noastre, sunt si ale copiilr nostri sau, ca sa parafrazez o zicere celebra, "sunt pierderile urmasilor urmasilor nostri". In comparatie cu asta, pierderile de imagine ale PSD, PNL, PDL sau Basescu sunt irelevante. Insa relevanta si imbucuratoare ar fi disparitia lor de pe scena politica. TInandu-se de mana, asa cum au si intrat in politica.

Must-read stuff. As I've said in this space before, and as the Arizona senator admitted in his autobiography, his campaign is all about McCain showing up his dad and granddad. Really, should America pay the price?

This is the story of the real John McCain, the one who has been hiding in plain sight. It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather.

In its broad strokes, McCain's life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives' evangelical churches.

In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot.

by Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone: Make-Believe Maverick

On the Border Line: This is a dark sad day ladies and gentlemen.. The reality here is that they will be back for more, that’s what socialist pigs do.

It always makes me chuckle when we get a full dose of unadulterated disaster capitalism the NeoCrybabies  call it socialist. No, this bailout is full blown capitalism folks. One can certainly argue the bailout is NOT constitutional (which it is not) or that it is NOT conservative, but it is capitalist through and through.

Those elitist, no good, liberals who sold out the American people for some foreign banks are not socialist.  Yes, folks that was a real problem with the first bill it did not bail out enough foreign banks.  I don't know if it was bailing out the foreign banks that got more Republican votes, or Obama strong arming the Congressional Black Congress, but either way it put the bill over the top.

So, where would a socialist stand on this bailout. As I said in an earlier post a "true conservative" and a socialist actually agree when it comes to graft, bailouts, and corporate welfare. Here is what a real life, un apologetic, socialist said on the Senate floor.

[wpvideo 5l5ZW42r]

Wall Street Bailout -- 10/01/2008

The Senate approved a $700 billion Wall Street bailout.  Senator Bernie Sanders voted against the bill that would put Wall Street’s burden on the backs of the American middle class. “The bailout package is far better than the absurd proposal originally presented to us by the Bush administration, but is still short of where we should be,” Sanders said. “If a bailout is needed, if taxpayer money must be placed at risk, if we are going to bail out Wall Street, it should be those people who have caused the problem, those people who have benefited from President Bush's tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, those people who have taken advantage of deregulation who should pick up the tab, not ordinary working people.”

Sanders proposed a five-year, 10 percent surtax on  families with incomes of more than $1 million  year and individuals earning over $500,00 to raise $300 billion to help bankroll the bailout.  Senators, however, set aside the amendment on a voice vote.

In a Senate floor speech, Sanders elaborated on the bailout bill’s flaws:

"This country faces many serious problems in the financial market, in the stock market, in our economy. We must act, but we must act in a way that improves the situation. We can do better than the legislation now before Congress.

"This bill does not effectively address the issue of what the taxpayers of our country will actually own after they invest hundreds of billions of dollars in toxic assets. This bill does not effectively address the issue of oversight because the oversight board members have all been hand picked by the Bush administration. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of foreclosures and addressing that very serious issue, which is impacting millions of low- and moderate-income Americans in the aggressive, effective way that we should be. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of executive compensation and golden parachutes. Under this bill, the CEOs and the Wall Street insiders will still, with a little bit of imagination, continue to make out like bandits.

"This bill does not deal at all with how we got into this crisis in the first place and the need to undo the deregulatory fervor which created trillions of dollars in complicated and unregulated financial instruments such as credit default swaps and hedge funds. This bill does not address the issue that has taken us to where we are today, the concept of too big to fail. In fact, within the last several weeks we have sat idly by and watched gigantic financial institutions like the Bank of America swallow up other gigantic financial institutions like Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. Well, who is going to bail out the Bank of America if it begins to fail? There is not one word about the issue of too big to fail in this legislation at a time when that problem is in fact becoming even more serious.

"This bill does not deal with the absurdity of having the fox guarding the hen house. Maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks so, but I have a hard time understanding why we are giving $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who along with other financial institutions, actually got us into this problem. Now, maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks that's a little bit weird, but that is what I think.

"This bill does not address the major economic crisis we face: growing unemployment, low wages, the need to create decent-paying jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure and moving us to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

"There is one issue that is even more profound and more basic than everything else that I have mentioned, and that is if a bailout is needed, if taxpayer money must be placed at risk, whose money should it be? In other words, who should be paying for this bailout which has been caused by the greed and recklessness of Wall Street operatives who have made billions in recent years?

"The American people are bitter. They are angry, and they are confused. Over the last seven and a half year, since George W. Bush has been President, 6 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and are in  poverty, and today working families are lining up at emergency food shelves in order to get the food they need to feed their families. Since President Bush has been in office, median family income for working-age families has declined by over $2,000.  More than seven million Americans have lost their health insurance.  Over four million have lost their pensions. Consumer debt has more than doubled. And foreclosures are the highest on record. Meanwhile, the cost of energy, food, health care, college and other basic necessities has soared.

"While the middle class has declined under President Bush's reckless economic policies, the people on top have never had it so good. For the first seven years of Bush's tenure, the wealthiest 400 individuals in our country saw a $670 billion increase in their wealth, and at the end of 2007 owned over $1.5 trillion in wealth. That is just 400 families, a $670 billion increase in wealth since Bush has been in office.

"In our country today, we have the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on earth, with the top 1 percent earning more income than the bottom 50 percent and the top 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.  We are living at a time when we have seen a massive  transfer of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthiest people in this country, when, among others, CEOs of Wall Street firms received unbelievable amounts in bonuses, including $39 billion in bonuses in the year 2007 alone for just the five major investment houses. We have seen the incredible greed of the financial services industry manifested in the hundreds of millions of dollars they have spent on campaign contributions and lobbyists in order to deregulate their industry so that hedge funds and other unregulated financial institutions could flourish. We have seen them play with trillions and trillions dollars in esoteric financial instruments, in unregulated industries which no more than a handful of people even understand. We have seen the financial services industry charge 30 percent interest rates on credit card loans and tack on outrageous late fees and other costs to unsuspecting customers. We have seen them engaged in despicable predatory lending practices, taking advantage of the vulnerable and the uneducated. We have seen them send out billions of deceptive solicitations to almost every mailbox in America.

"Most importantly, we have seen the financial services industry lure people into mortgages they could not afford to pay, which is one of the basic reasons why we are here tonight.

"In the midst of all of this, we have a bailout package which says to the middle class that you are being asked to place at risk $700 billion, which is $2,200 for every man, woman, and child in this country. You're being asked to do that in order to undo the damage caused by this excessive Wall Street greed. In other words, the “Masters of the Universe,” those brilliant Wall Street insiders who have made more money than the average American can even dream of, have brought our financial system to the brink of collapse.  Now, as the American and world financial systems teeter on the edge of a meltdown, these multimillionaires are demanding that the middle class, which has already suffered under Bush's disastrous economic policies, pick up the pieces that they broke. That is wrong, and that is something that I will not support.

"If we are going to bail out Wall Street, it should be those people who have caused the problem, those people who have benefited from Bush's tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, those people who have taken advantage of deregulation, those people are the people who should pick up the tab, and not ordinary working people. I introduced an amendment which gave the Senate a very clear choice. We can pay for this bailout of Wall Street by asking people all across this country, small businesses on Main Street, homeowners on Maple Street, elderly couples on Oak Street, college students on Campus Avenue, working families on Sunrise Lane, we can ask them to pay for this bailout. That is one way we can go. Or, we can ask the people who have gained the most from the spasm of greed, the people whose incomes have been soaring under president bush, to pick up the tab.

"I proposed to raise the tax rate on any individual earning $500,000 a year or more or any family earning $1 million a year or more by 10 percent. That increase in the tax rate, from 35 percent to 45 percent, would raise more than $300 billion in the next five years, almost half the cost of the bailout. If what all the supporters of this legislation say is correct, that the government will get back some of its money when the market calms down and the government sells some of the assets it has purchased, then $300 billion should be sufficient to make sure that 99.7 percent of taxpayers do not have to pay one nickel for this bailout.

"Most of my constituents did not earn a $38 million bonus in 2005 or make over $100 million in total compensation in three years, as did Henry Paulson, the current secretary of the Treasury, and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Most of my constituents did not make $354 million in total compensation over the past five years as did Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers. Most of my constituents did not cash out $60 million in stock after a $29 billion bailout for Bear Stearns after that failing company was bought out by J.P. Morgan Chase. Most of my constituents did not get a $161 million severance package as E. Stanley O'Neill, former CEO Merrill Lynch did.

"Last week I placed on my Web site, www.sanders.senate.gov, a letter to Secretary Paulson in support of my amendment. It said that it should be those people best able to pay for this bailout, those people who have made out like bandits in recent years, they should be asked to pay for this bailout. It should not be the middle class. To my amazement, some 48,000 people cosigned this petition, and the names keep coming in. The message is very simple: “We had nothing to do with causing this bailout. We are already under economic duress. Go to those people who have made out like bandits. Go to those people who have caused this crisis and ask them to pay for the bailout.”

"The time has come to assure our constituents in Vermont and all over this country that we are listening and understand their anger and their frustration. The time has come to say that we have the courage to stand up to all of the powerful financial institution lobbyists who are running amok all over the Capitol building, from the Chamber of Commerce to the American Bankers Association, to the Business Roundtable, all of these groups who make huge campaign contributions, spend all kinds of money on lobbyists, they're here loud and clear. They don't want to pay for this bailout, they want middle America to pay for it."

Yes, the House has capitulated to the new, improved, pork laced version of the bailout bill.  Proving, with Euclidean clarity, that the American political system no longer represents the people but is beholden to the financial elites  (plus some other elites, oil, military...the list goes on.)

Economist and scholar Thomas DiLorenzo, writing on the Lew Rockwell blog has expressed a reaction that goes a tad beyond his usual mild (guffaw) scholarly rebuffs of the federal state:

"I just returned from Home Depot where I bought the biggest pitchfork that they had.  I'm soaking some rags with kerosine, to be wrapped around a broom handle and then set on fire.  Then I'm heading down to the Baltimore-Washington parkway to D.C..   I'm hoping a large crowd will follow my example."

Unfortunately I live far from the Baltimore-Washington D.C. parkway...but if the weather is as nice there as it is here today it would be a wonderful time to go for a stroll!

Peter Althin har gjort sig känd genom flera spektakulära uttalanden och vet att nyttja media till sin fördel. Möjligen är det en del av en uttänkt plan att efterträda som partiledare eller på annat sätt befästa sin position inom Kristdemokraterna eller så är det bara ett utslag av hans personlighet. Brottsligheten bland barn under 15 år är inte av den digniteten att den förtjänar den uppmärksamhet den ges i media idag.

Låt mig närmare reda ut begreppen kring Peter Althins förslag.

Som det är idag har vi en straffmyndighetsålder på 15 år. Den som är yngre än så kan inte straffas för sina gärningar. Althin utgår i sitt resonemang som om det innebär att en gärningsman under 15 år helt slipper åtgärder från samhällets sida om denne begår ett brott.

Detta är inte sant. För det första blir en underårig gärningsman skyldig att ekonomiskt ersätta de skador han eller hon orsakar. För det andra kan det vid allvarliga brott bli fråga om ingripande från sociala myndigheter om föräldrarna eller barnets miljö anses vara en del av problematiken bakom brottet. Lagen medger ordentliga ingripanden vid allvarliga brott. Det är de lindriga brotten i enstaka form som undgår samhällets repression. Det är naturligtvis olyckligt och där kan man absolut förändra lagstiftningen!

Mitt förslag är att man utvidgar sociala myndigheters möjligheter att göra ingripanden och omplaceringar av barn som begår upprepade brott. Processen är redan idag civilrättslig och bör förbli sådan, det vill säga att de sociala myndigheternas beslut kan överklagas i förvaltningsdomstol.

Att som Peter Althin föreslå, en brottmålsdomstol för barn med tillämpning av rättsystemets straff är ingen del av en önskvärd utveckling. Det finns mängder av länder som kan verka som avskräckande exempel, tex USA där man kan låsa in 13-åringar i fängelse för vuxna. Även om det inte är Peter Althins avsikt så bör han förstå vad hans förslag kan leda till i förlängningen.

Yttermera handlar det också om vilka signaler samhället ger sina medborgare i fråga om samhällets syn på barn. Enligt min mening så bör i så fall barn ha större egna rättigheter om de kan anses vara fullt medvetna om konsekvenserna av sina handlingar när de är under 15. Får jag föreslå en körkortsålder på 14 år i så fall? Med skyldigheter kommer nämligen rättigheter, åtminstone i ett demokratiskt samhälle.

Slutligen; samhället ska givetvis inte stå passivt när barn begår brott. Jag menar dock att dessa barn ska vara föremål för sociala myndigheters ingripanden och inte straffrättsliga åtgärder. De sociala myndigheternas ingripanden kan mycket väl utvidgas i lagen. Omplacering, vårdhemsboende och annat är i de flesta fall straff nog och dessutom bra mycket lämpligare för att få ett problemfyllt barn på rätt köl igen.

Există creştere economica în România sau doar un deficit extern imens ? Dom-le prim ministru, este sau nu este creştere economică ?

Clar ca este, dar cu preţul îndatorării României până în măduva oaselor... cred ca e o falsa creştere economică. Va veni şi pe noi mult povestita şi nedorita criză... un euroi tocmai s-a făcut 3.872 RON şi încă nu e criză.

De ce scade valoarea leului ? Vedeţi aici. Banca Naţională nu cred să se lanseze în stabilizarea monedei. Băncile din România nu dau nici un fel de declaraţii, ba din contră, tac chitic, chiar nu trebuie să ştie cel ce are bani la bancă ce se va putea întâmpla cu economiile lui ?

Aleşii noştri au votat cu toţii mărirea pensiilor, (măsură populistă) ca pensionarii să aibă hârtie de şters la fund după o masă copioasa compusă din pâine goală îngheţată de gradele celsius, în minus, din apartamentele lor. Va creşte inflaţia, care e deja galopanta... şi mai o si ajutaţi d-lor ... de unde aveţi bani pentru mărirea pensiilor ? Sau mai cereţi împrumut ? E o soluţie, dar adio creştere economica...
Sunteţi nişte inconştienţi domnilor guvernanţi şi domnilor parlamentari, mai aveţi bani pentru alegeri ?

Mergeţi după principiul "după mine potopul ", sau care e raţiunea dvs ?

Cu aşa politicieni nu-i de mirare... , viitor de aur ţara noastră are, iar vlăstarele sunt pe măsura profesorilor... (sau cel puţin cele pe care le cunosc personal pe aici, pe unde locuiesc eu) !

Numai bine !

Ionel Scrofan

(h/t Top of the Ticket for the vid)

To quote the always-quotable John Lydon, "ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"  After generating an inordinate, unprecedented level of manufactured hype and controversy, I find myself fully in agreement with Melissa McEwan: last night's highly anticipated political reality show vice-presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden proved to be, for lack of a better word, unbelievably boring.  As Liss memorably puts it, "I may have fallen asleep if Palin's mispronunciation of nuclear didn't keep compelling me to jam pencils into my ears."

Defying expectations (duh), Palin was serviceable if unspectacular in her role, no doubt due in large part to the favourable follow-up-free format, coupled with a novel "ignore the question" non sequitur strategy. She managed to achieve the bare minimum of what she was supposed to do: climb over the inch-high bar that had been deliberately erected in the sub-basement of collective public and pundit expectations, to the prefabricated delight of dime-turning conservative 'critics' like David Brooks and Peggy Noonan, both of whom, as Daniel Larison says, proved themselves to be intellectually incurious, easily impressed hacks:

She is not a person of thought but of action. ~Peggy Noonan

On Thursday night, Palin took her inexperience and made a mansion out of it. From her first “Nice to meet you. May I call you Joe?” she made it abundantly, unstoppably and relentlessly clear that she was not of Washington, did not admire Washington and knew little about Washington. She ran not only against Washington, but the whole East Coast, just to be safe. ~David Brooks

Noonan and Brooks actually fall over themselves trying to compliment Palin on the modest success of being coherent, but these excerpts are striking in that someone might have written them as withering, sarcastic criticism and instead they are supposed to be a celebration of her virtues. Noonan complains that Biden showed too much forbearance, but this is exactly what Noonan and Brooks show in their efforts to tip-toe around the obvious that for all her mastery of the non-answer and glittering generalities, to borrow Halcro’s language, she did not do very well.  Incredibly, her fans don’t seem to mind debasing the meaning of excellence if it allows them to call what we saw last night excellent.

Roger Simon of The Politico earnestly sums up the conventional wisdom circulating throughout The Village:

Sarah Palin was supposed to fall off the stage at her vice presidential debate Thursday evening. Instead, she ended up dominating it.

She not only kept Joe Biden on the defensive for much of the debate, she not only repeatedly attacked Barack Obama, but she looked like she was enjoying herself while doing it.

She smiled. She faced the camera. She was warm. She was human. Gosh and golly, she even dropped a bunch of g’s.

“John McCain doesn’t tell one thing to one group and somethin’ else to another,” she said. “Those huge tax breaks aren’t comin’ to those huge multinational corporations.”

She went out of her way to talk in everyday terms, saying things like “I betcha” and “We have a heckuva opportunity to learn” and “Darn right we need tax relief.”

[...]

True, a lot of her statements were of the fortune cookie variety. “At end of day,” she said, “if we are all working together for the greater good, it is going to be OK.”

But a lot of people like fortune cookies.

Politics as Chinese food--there's an apt metaphor in there. Winking, "Joe Sixpack", and "drill, baby, drill" may play well among the celebrity-obsessed Us Weekly constituency who, as Matt Taibbi noted in a recent Rolling Stone feature, "simply consume [candidates] as media entertainment". But, after ninety minutes of being force-fed insubstantial talking points like "you betcha!", "a pair of mavericks" and "hockey mom" wisdom, I was left feeling intellectually malnourished (and rather besotted).

One wonders what might have been, had Palin been thrust into a rousing, demanding debate format similar to the round-table free-for-all here in the Great White North that also took place last night, where, pace Simon, simply being warm, human and fact-free wouldn't provide the same amount of superficial rhetorical traction.

One also must question whether Palin went too far in attempting to establish her outsider cred. According to Steve M, rather than cementing her populist bona fides, Palin's (self) indulgent one-sided rap-session with the American people "points up the other huge problem with Palin, beyond her Bushite policy positions and her utter lack of qualifications for the job -- her unbridled narcissism":

Politicians tend to be narcissistic, obviously, but I think Palin's self-obsession is the purest I've ever seen. Bill Clinton, for instance, can radiate narcissism, as can, say, Joe Biden (though not last night), but when Clinton and Biden are self-regarding, it's because they think they're masters of the task at hand -- politics or statecraft. Palin's self-regard is most nakedly obvious when she's landed a zinger. The insufferably smug look she gets on her face makes clear that all she cares about is Sarah Palin winning. The reason she can't master the policy proposals, or even describe them in any detail, is that her ego isn't invested in doing anything except advancing the cause of herself.

Regardless, Lola Adesioye doesn't think the folksy, Reaganesque appeal to middle America will have much of an impact beyond Palin's hardcore support base:

The over-use of buzz word such as "hockey moms" and "Joe Sixpack" did give the impression that Palin is an ordinary person. But when you're in the running to be vice-president of the most powerful nation in the world, that is not necessarily a good thing. Biden, on the other hand, came across as commanding, highly knowledgeable and statesman-like - someone you could trust in a crisis.

This impression is further buttressed by the results of last night's CNN/Opinion Research Corproration instant reaction poll, which found that although a majority of respondents found Palin to be "more likable" than Biden, "87 percent of the people polled said Biden is qualified while only 42 percent said Palin is qualified [to assume the presidency]."  Oh, and speaking of Biden, he too defied expectations, avoiding any gender-based condescension or embarrassing verbal slip-ups.  Nor did he attempt to draw blood from his opponent.

Instead, Biden seemed content directing his most vigourous attacks towards John McCain, reining in his legendary self-satisfied verbosity and allowing Palin to directly appeal to her rural right-wing base (although, as Joan Walsh observes, Palin missed an opportunity to temporarily suspend the lipstick pitbull routine and display some genuine--or feigned--non-partisan compassion after Biden emotionally referenced the tragic deaths of his first wife and daughter).

All of which is fine; by next week, this largely--and, considering the by-default also-ran stature of its participants, appropriately--negligible debate will have been forgotten, as all eyes will once again be focused on the lead protagonists in the edge-of-your-seat prime-time contest that is the 2008 presidential election, which is proving to be the best damn reality TV program since season three of America's Next Top Model.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

[Sarah Palin] succeeded Thursday in one crucial respect: re-establishing herself as a charismatic, composed performer. The evening had offered a needed opportunity to reverse a growing perception among voters that she lacks the intellectual firepower and experience to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

... But after Thursday, that question may recede a bit as an election issue, switching again to whether McCain and Palin can present a convincing case that their administration would offer something different than the current one.

And that's where Biden seemed the most commanding. Avoiding directly attacking Palin, he went after McCain again and again: on the economy, branding the Arizona senator as a deregulator who encouraged the current Wall Street crisis; on foreign policy by tying McCain to the war in Iraq; and on health care, where Biden labeled McCain's health care plan, which involves tax credits, "the ultimate Bridge to Nowhere."

"Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie's Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years," Biden said. "And then ask them whether there's a single major initiative that John McCain differs with the president on. On taxes, on Iraq, on Afghanistan, on the whole question of how to help education, on the dealing with health care."

At one point near the end of the debate, Biden seemed to be overcome in referring to the car accident that killed his first wife and his baby daughter in 1972.

At the close of the debate, both sides claimed victory.

via Chicago Tribune: The winner? It's Debatable

On the financial crisis, he noted that McCain said at 9:00 a.m. one recent Monday that “the fundamentals of the economy were strong.” And then at 11:00 that same morning McCain said we were in an economic crisis. “He’s out touch,” Biden said. “John on 20 different occasions in the previous year and a half called for more deregulation.”

On Iraq, he lashed McCain together with Cheney: “John McCain said exactly what Dick Cheney said”—about how easy the war was going to be. They were in “lock-step.”

He thoroughly discredited McCain’s health care proposal, noting that though McCain is offering to give people a $5,000 tax break on health care, he’s going to force them off their employers’ health care rolls and onto the individual market, which will cost people $12,000 a year.

And on McCain’s maverick reputation, Biden went to town: “He has been no maverick on the things that matter to people’s lives. He voted four out of five times for George Bush’s budget, which put us a half a trillion dollars in debt this year. . . . He has not been a maverick in providing health care for people. He has voted against including another 3.6 million children in coverage. . . . He’s not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college. He’s not been a maverick on the war. He’s not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table.”

via The Progressive: Biden Wins Debate Hands Down

Following a week of embarrassing interview clips, and polls that look bad for McCain and for Palin specifically, expectations for the Republican running-mate seem so low that she has a serious chance of pulling off a victory of sorts tonight. On the other hand, various Alaskan politicians and others have been busy pointing out that, in the past, Palin has tended to do much better in debates than in other public-speaking contexts. Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe pushed this notion as far as it would go today, drawing gales of laughter from the press corps when he claimed Palin was "one of the best debaters in American politics." But this isn't all one giant Machiavellian game of expectations management. The McCain campaign's nervousness has been too acute and voluminous not to be real, and there's no denying that the stakes tonight for Palin are enormously high.

Oliver Burkeman's Campaign Diary: Liveblogging the vice-presidential debate

Comparatie intre perioada 01.01. - 31.07.2008 si perioada 01.01-31.07.2007

• Productia industriala: + 5.8%
• Cifra de afaceri ale companiilor din industrie: +7.4%
• Productivitatea muncii in industrie: +9.3%

• Volumul lucrarilor de constructii: +29.2%
• Valoarea lucrarilor de constructii: +32.3%

• Cifra de afaceri a companiilor din comert: +17.1%

• Servicii: +9.9%

Nivelul salariilor si numarul de salariati pe domenii la 31.07.2008 (salariul net):

• Intermedieri financiare: 3164 lei (82 000)
• Administratie publica: 2292 lei (213 000)
• Asigurari: 2242 lei (18 000)
• Posta si telecomunicatii: 1959 lei (85 000)
• Invatamant: 1442 lei (400 000)
• Salariul mediu net pe economie: 1308 lei (nr total de salariati:4 833 000)
  
• Sanatate si asistenta sociala: 1239 lei (368 000)
• Industrie: 1237 lei (1 530 000)
• Constructii: 1107 lei (420 000)
• Comert: 1041 lei (770 000)
• Agricultura: 894 lei
• Hoteluri si restaurante: 746 lei (116 000)

Castiguri medii pe ora (nete):

• Intermedieri financiare: 20.43 lei/ora
• Administratie publica: 14.12 lei/ora
• Asigurari: 13.94 lei/ora
• Cercetare si dezvoltare informatica: 13.78 lei/ora
• Invatamant: 11.22 lei/ora
• Echipamente radio si comunicatii: 8.02 lei/ora
• Masini si echipamente: 7.74 lei/ora
• Industrie: 7.45 lei/ora
• Sanatate: 7.45 lei/ora
• Tehnica de calcul si de birou: 7.24 lei/ora
• Constructii metalice si produse din metal: 6.92 lei/ora
• Industria prelucratoare: 6.53 lei/ora
• Constructii: 6.21 lei/ora
• Comert: 6 lei/ora

Numarul mediu de pensionari in iulie 2008:

• 5, 7 milioane

Nivelul pensiei:

• 574 lei (44% din salariul mediu)

Deficitul balantei de plati:

• cu 34% mai mare in trim I 2008 fata de trim. I 2007.

Sursa: Institutul National de Statistica

Precizari:

- Nu vad nicaieri o crestere de 50% care sa justifice cresteri salariale sau ale pensiilor cu 50%

- Criteriile de evaluare a competentei/rezultaelor/eficientei salariatilor din sistemul bugetar (administratie, invatamant, sanatate) sunt alea care sunt. Stim care sunt si criteriile dupa care se fac angajarile si promovarile in aceste domenii.

-  Domeniile cu cele mai slabe rezultate din intreaga economie sunt administratia publica, invatamantul si sanatatea. Le-am mai discutat, nu mai e nevoie sa le discutam acum.

- Daca se aplica principiul +50%, principiu statuat de partidele noastre parlamentare (PSD, PNL, PDL, PC, PRM, UDMR) acum 3 zile in Parlament, salariile in domeniul bugetar vor fi:

- Administratie publica: 3438 lei

- Invatamant: 2163 lei

- Sanatate: 1858 lei

Vorbim doar de salariile nete, nu si de tichete de masa, tichete cadou, prime, stimulente, sporuri de nervozitate, sporuri de irascibilitate, sporuri de iritare, sporuri de toxicitate, sporuri de radiatii si alte sporuri.

Fiscalitate si birocratie

113 plati per firma

O firma din Romania trebuie sa faca anual 113 plati pentru a-si achita taxele si impozitele. In Cehia o firma trebuie sa faca doar 12 plati. Suntem pe primul loc in UE din punctul asta de vedere.

Nivel de impozitare de 65%.  Bonus: 420 de taxe

La nivelul contributiilor sociale platite de angajator si angajat cumulat suntem pe locul trei in Europa, dupa Franta si Belgia, cu 45.5%. La toate astea se adauga impozitul de 16%, ajungandu-se la un nivel de impozitare de aproape 65%. Vorbim aici doar de impozite, nu si de alte 420 (patrusutedouazeci) de taxe pe care le platim statului (pe bere, aer, apa, motorina, branza, manz, barza, tigari, drumuri, plecari, veniri, stationari, scaun, mediu, inmatriculare, dezmatriculare, reinmatriculare, casa, masa, nevasta, catel, purcel, curte, gradina, pe ce mancam, pe ce nu mancam dar am putea manca, pe strazile pe care circulam, pe strazile pe care nu vom circula niciodata... si ma rog, pe aproape tot vocabularul limbii romane). Suntem pe primul loc in Europa la numarul de taxe: 420 (repet ca sa nu credeti ca prima oara a fost o greseala de tastare). Si sunt doar atatea fiindca politicienii si functionarii romani au un vocabular destul de limitat, daca aveau vocabularul lui Patapievici sau Plesu, ne terminau.

Concluzii

Cei in jur de 4 milioane de salariati si antreprenori din industrie, constructii, comert si turism lucreaza in sistemul privat, platesc statului taxe si impozite si primesc in schimb servicii de cea mai proasta calitate (administratie, sanatate, educatie, infrastructura etc). Incapacitatea PNL si PDL de a atinge aceste teme si de a le formula electoral (pomenile cu sacosa sau cu votul in Parlament nu cer imaginatie si inteligenta, e nevoie doar de bani luati de la fraieri si dati la clientela electorala), de a le considera prioritati (teme centrale) au facut ca la alegerile europarlamentare si locale prezenta la vot in mediul urban sa fie in jur de 30%. In schimb, PNL si PDL alearga dupa clientii electorali ai PSD-ului. Clienti pe care PSD-ul nu-i va pierde oricate pomeni ar da PNL si ar vota PDL.

Batalia alegerilor din noiembrie se va da la nivel de galerii iar din punctul asta de vedere PSD e mult peste PDL si PNL. Pensionarii, bugetarii si asistatii nu fac parte din nehotarati, ei sunt traditional ai PSD-ului si o parte dintre ei conjuctural ai PNL-ului (ca PNL e la putere si el "da"). Cei care au facut diferenta in 12 decembrie 2004 nu erau nici pensionari, nici asistati, nici militanti, nici pasionati de politica. Nu faceau parte din galerie.

PS. Pedelistii au mai descoperit si ei niste pensionari acum si au sarit sa le mareasca pensiile. Presupun ca au facut sapaturi si le-a luat ceva timp detectivilor si consilierilor politici pana sa gaseasca niste pensii nemarite, niste pomeni nedate. Cred ca se face deja spionaj in materie de pomeni si fiecare vrea sa-i fure clientii celuilalt si sa vina el primul cu marirea. Si evident, marirea lui sa fie cea mai mare.