Not to mention Ron a hurricane if it follows the same track of say a Katrina has the potential to pick up all those surface containment's and spread them inland from the Gulf to New England. Just depends on where they shake out of the storm clouds.

I would point you all to Dr. Jeff Masters blog on Weather Underground. He does a phenomenal job of describing the impacts that a hurricane would have on the spill as well as the impact the spill could have on a hurricane. Well worth the read.

When the only up to the minute polling on this race was R2000's, it isn't THAT much of a surprise. As a math nerd, I've explained before what is wrong with their weighting-they weight to the last presidential election.

In '08, the Democratic turn-out in Arkansas was more liberal. Therefore, they weighted to the very left of the party and had Halter winning by 4 points. Mid-terms are different animals, bringing out more centrist and right voters. This is the flaw in their model.

It was, however, more bad news for unions. In Indiana, I understand that Governor Daniels gave workers the choice of whether or not to pay union dues. In his words, 'they gave themselves a two percent pay increase'.

It this were done nationally, I wonder how many people would actually pay dues that went to losing political causes, whether or not the rank and file who pay those dues agreed with the spending?

Daniels is also a math nerd...but he doesn't give a damn about education, or the people of Indiana. He's a good Republican...and he will not run for President.

I guess that explains why he was in D.C. this week, meeting with groups who might support him. Ron, he's going to run, and guess what?

I think he's going to win.

I was surprised about Lincoln because of the poll numbers but I remember NH in 2008. Still, I really wonder if the fact that polling places where Halter performed very well were cut from 40 to 2 with people having to drive as much as 20 miles to vote with obviously long lines, insufficient parking impacted the outcome. Lincoln's victory wasn't by much and that could have made the difference.

To add to your thoughts about how bad the oil spill really is and its potential to get worse--last night, Rick Steiner, oil spill expert and environmentalist, made the best reality check comment I've heard in describing this disaster. "all the king's horses and all the king's men" are unable to do much considering the magnitude of the disaster.

But no joe all blow, wasn't it you who predicted the President would resign by now? We don't take anything you say seriously no joe all blow, we just read for the comedy.

Blanche Lincoln deserved to sweat it. But there's no use in winning battles and losing the war. She has the best name recognition and can attract Independents in defeating a Republican candidate.

But if she wins, I hope she has learned a lesson about the unprecedented game being played in which the Republican lock-in-step Borg filibusters and places holds on everything. Because of GOP unwillingness to work on anything, even refusing to offer solutions of their own, Blanche needs to stand up for what's right instead of special interests along with Republicans.

As for Angle, she’s not about limited government. A lot of teabaggers would like to return to the early days of industrialism with sweat shops and child labor. But the ones who want to legislate morality, such as prohibition, now we’re talking about the Dark Ages and the Inquisition. Angle would like a theocratic fascist dictatorship—don’t be fooled.

Well, the unions are due for a comedown. States used to have right to work laws which prevented the communists from forcing all others to join their union(commune). Krushev announced this communist takeover of the uneducated when he pounded his shoe at the U.N. and said "we will bury you without war". The socialists have since taken over the unions and the democrat party. That's why the "doom and gloom" version of all national news is promulgated by the Pravda of the socialists, the NY Times. Keep people panicked about having to take care of themselves and they are captive voting robots.

Mike, thanks for the laugh. Your post was MOST amusing.

Mike, did you really register here just to say that? Right to work laws are on the rise, not the decline. Communism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism has never been a force in American politics, Are you really suggesting that the Soviet Union is following through on Kruschev's plan to take over the US? Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism isn't actually the same thing as Communism, and if you study them you'll see the difference. In any case it doesn't matter be cause no prominent political party advocates or resembles either of those things. And it's the Democratic party, not the "Democrat" party. Even a lot of people on the right admit that the "Liberal media" is just a myth, by the way http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/americandebate/19386344.html . Of course I must be a captive robot. Since I don't believe as you do I clearly don't have the ability to think independently.

What the liberal media constantly ignores is that the REAL issue confronting Democrats is not the anti-incumbent attitudes, but the anti-big spenders in Congress. The "Tea-Party" is just one manifestation of that attitude, and the intensity of the feelings on this issue will likely result in serious repercussions in November.

Bill Clinton was successful because he controlled the growth of government spending to about 3% per year, which resulted in a few budget surpluses. G W Bush allowed spending to increase to about 6% per year, which increased the deficits significantly. Obama has increased government spending by about 22% per year (700% more than Clinton's average spending increases), and the deficit is spiraling out of control.

This is the REAL problem for the Democrats, and one they cannot control because it runs counter to their big-government philosophy.

Gee, when did Cheney go back to work for Haliburton?

MORE importantly - when did he CEASE working for Haliburton. Maybe not on the direct payroll; but conflict of interest oozes from that sleazebag.

Thanks IR, I have suspected there were more problems with deep water drilling but I didn’t realize there were sooo many around the world. I spent 6 years on submarines which give me a little better perspective on the effects of deep water than the average person. I also learned first hand the effects of currents and, what doesn’t get talked about, thermal layers.

Look at the motion of waves to see how oil is moved. Waves are similar to ice burgs in that what you see on the surface is only 10% of the motion. A wave forms a figure 8. A 10 foot wave on the surface yields motion 90 feet down.

Thanks Dennis sounds like you've got whole lot better take on what these currents and thermoclines may be doing in the unseen part of this debacle. If you have the time and inclination I'd sure be interested in your take on that aspect because I think it's being overlooked.

I heard something about another leak last night. Also heard that the top kill tried earlier by BP may have caused more ruptures in the pipe and that it why the Obama administration ordered BP to stop.

Global warming may be taking a hit right now but if any good can be gleaned from this oil disaster, it is that WE humans learn a lesson--we must stop destroying this planet in the name of progress and profit. The consequences of this will be visible long after I'm gone.

Figures, Halliburton and Cheney are crooks who abuse, destroy and plot against the rest of us in secrecy. My one hope is that the Justice Dept can build a sufficient case for criminal negligence against every one of the companies involved, BP-Halliburton-TransOcean. They each ignored the obvious, took short cuts and did shoddy work. 11 people paid the price. My anger and frustration is focused on the creators of this disaster and not those trying to clean up after them.

What else can one expect after years of Republican support for deregulation, tort reform, tax credits for big business like BP and the wealthy? It is redistribution of wealth from the public sector to the private sector--profits are privatized and debt is socialized.

In the meantime Republican administrations (yes, look it up including Reagan) increased government and deficit spending every time they’ve been in power. Their supporters have been snookered by trickle-down voodoo economics and fear and lies typically used by fascist dictators to invade Iraq or to torture or to have warrantless wiretaps, and on and on.

The new right? It’s the same as the old right--just the crazier ones who have climbed out from under their rocks.

IR, what we are doing to ourselves in the name of progress and profit is we are killing ourselves and our earth. As T. S. Eliot wrote:

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

Don't forget Liz Cheney in the news not just defending lax treatment of the oil industry during the Bush/Cheney administration, but as if that wasn't ludicrous enough, she tried to place all the blame on Obama--surprise. I hope I never meet the woman, because she needs a good sound slap in her snarky face.

Jody on the technical end the pipe rupture part has been a consideration from the beginning whether your talking top kill or simply sliding a new valve over the pipe.. I don't think a lot of folks understand but I'm being told that the outgoing pressure at the wellhead is about 13000 psi so in all fairness anybody has to be careful not to rupture the pipe. That would result in a crater being formed similar to what you see when an underground water main bursts. Having done one or two of those believe me it complicates things. As far as whether or not the administration shut them on top kill or not I don't know who made that call or why but I will say that if I worked for the President I would be telling him that they need to be very careful about some of these things for one simple reason. B.P. and it's minions are quite capable of pursuing a course that does more damage and doesn't stop any thing as long as they have a C.Y.A. document that they can point to and say well we did what you said and now looked what happened. Like I said been there, done that, got a tee shirt, didnt like it.

"true patriot" (of what?) seems to be unaware that ALL taxes are paid by the consumers, NOT business. Any business tax is passed on as higher prices, lost American jobs, and movement of business offshore. The poorest suffer the most from any taxes on any business. That is the fact.

Actually Mike, it's an oversimplification to say that ALL taxes are paid by consumers. It entirely depends on the ability of the producer to pass on such tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence . It's a great right-wing talking point, however. Thanks for playing.

I agree John B. The tax paying consumer can also choose (free choice) which business to patronize.

Golly John B, johnz... talking point ? what universe do you live in? Only the government can print money. Every single dollar, every penny, that a private company pays to the government, either came from revenue, or will come from revenue, that is the money it collects form consumers who purchased and paid for the products or services it sells. (or from future consumer purchases).

This is not a talking point, it is simple (perhapos too simple for you?) inescapable logic. You can't create something from nothing. Honestly, even when government prints money and hands it out, it is not immune from this simple fact, it is just deceptively hiding it from us citizens by delaying it's effects until later, (when our children will have to pay the piper)

Even more basic, what you appear to not grasp, is that every dollar, every penny, in every bank, or citizen's pocket, or government coffer, or corporate slush funcd, every one, represents some portion of some human being's labor, somewhere, past present or future... So every time that dollar changes hands, what is happening is that the proceeds of some human being's labor (either past or futuire promised) is being transferred from one place to another. Every one of those human beings is real live person, not a corporation, or association, or bureau or some crap idealist abstraction you can feel good about screwing. They're all people, who did or will work their butts off to create whatever wealth that dollar represents.

Don't know whom you contribute the books to, but I generally use an outfit called "Operation Gratitude". They've got a website if you're interested.

I take a rest from serious stuff myself. From your description, I think I'll avoid that book, don't need any nightmares. A fun one I enjoyed with a bit of mystery and some odd characters--"Shoot the Moon" by Billie Letts.

Eric do you really think liberals and labor will back a republican. No man that not going to happen. her tough race was against another liberal. during the general election real liberal will come out.

I agree, Eric - no way she wins in AR. She is damaged and 48% of Dems don't really like her.

Eric, why on earth would we want to lose that seat. Like her or not, she is a Dem. and I would concede nothing to a repub. She may be not be our ideal Dem. but we cannot afford to reduce our numbers in Congress. I'l hold my nose and give her a pass.

I think labor got her attention, she can't win the general without their support, and she may not win even with their support. I would not concede the seat to a republican without at least giving Lincoln the chance to reaffirm her support for Labor.

This is a wake-up call for her.

LMAO! Thanks for the chuckle! I NEEDED it!

I'm still scratching my head- Is this supposed to be funny........ or factual??

Good one, IR.

OK IR, That is truely funny. Thanks for my first morning laugh!!

Little bit of both maybe drive-by

"Ways To Fix The BP Oil Leak

Barack Obama Technique - Round up 1,000 SEIU members, take them to the areas where the oil is floating in the water, and tell them that the Annointed one put it there. Union Losers will swallow anything that comes from our Prez."

Fixed.

Typical rethug... not an original idea amongst them!

I.R.:

Loved it as USUAL! LOL!!

Pretty original there, JJ

sheesh....

Independent Redneck: I got my giggles from that little ditty!

LOL!

To quote Keith Olberman..."that woman is an idiot" but the mainstream Republicans and the Tea Baggers love her.

HA! Got a good laugh with that one!

Why would I fix a quote if I was trying to be original? ...Being original in this case would be self-defeating and pointless.

I can't disagree with the original post..as most Sarah Palin fanatics are just that.

But YOU can't disagree with my fix, because deep down you know its true too.

Ohhhh.. so that was suppose to be a 'fix? Looks more or like a 'copy'... imho! lol

Wow, JJ- that was pretty original. Where'd you ever come up with that one?? You should write for the Hannity radio show, man!

JJ from WA Barack Obama Technique- Round up 1,000 SEIU members, take them to the areas where the oil is floating in the water, and tell them that the Annointed one put it there. Union Losers will swallow anything that comes from our Prez."

LAAAAAME!!! Thanks for the retread, J.

You moron, The Nationalist Socialist Party (NAZI) were Liberals! Hitler came to Power with the support of Labor Groups and Progressives who were trying to pull their country out of a deep econimic depression (The Great Dperession).

How can you say Neo-Nazi Republican, that's an oxy-moron? Except to paint yourself as a uneducated moron spouting off insults and misinformed opinions that have no bearing what-so-ever on the actual political or social issues at hand.

Why don't you can your stupid derogatory generalzations and make comments whwn you actually have something positive to add to the story?

Hey Brutus try using a spell checker before spouting off with one of your ill informed revisionist history rants. As for not adding anything positive to the discussion try using a mirror.

Oh Look at you.... You can catch a typo. You must be so proud.

Ill informed revionist history rant? What was ill informed or revisionist about it? Enlighten me with your great knowledge of Post WWII Germany and it's political landscape of the time. Please feel free to correct any misinformation I gave as to what leanings the Nationalist Socialist Party had, or where Hitler's power base was. Please feel free to spew forth the knowledge that you previously held back, and also feel free to proof read and edit my comments in the future, as it seems you are more interested for form than content.

Oops another typo... Should've been post WWI Germany, not WWII.

Caught that one all by myself.....

I don't suppose you'll listen, Brutus, but I'll give it a shot. First of all, The National Socialist Workers Party was abolished post WWII, so knowledge of that era really doesn't help in understanding them. Among the other tidbits you'll find here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party is confirmation that the Nazis were bitter enemies of the Communists, considered the liberal authoritarian extreme. The Nazis in fact killed thousands of Communists due to their political views. Since you apparently believe Jonah Goldburg's claptrap about Fascism and Communism being the same thing as Liberalism you'll be surprised to learn that no less a fascist than Benito Mussolini said " Fascism should more appropriately called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." In other words Fascism is the ultimate authoritarian extreme of Conservatism. Do try to cross check Glenn Beck against actual historical sources once in a while.

Oh spank! That had to hurt.

Actually,

I agree with most of that last part.

Socialists are extreme Liberals.

Facists are extreme conservatives.

But Communists are really the alernative oppisite of Capitalists.... Communism is really more an economic view point than a political one. The Cold war for instance was about Capitalism vs Communism, not Democracy vs Communism.

You see a lot of posters on this board assume that just because someone voices a different opinion that they must be a hard nosed republican and therefore unwilling to listen, or vice versa. I'm not saying you are one of these people, but neither am I.

Further you shouldn't use Wikipedia as a search uless you are looking for only the most general information as there is no telling who wrote the article. They're getting better about getting people to cite sources and fact checking but it's still safer to use more reliabe resources.

The thing about the Germans in the 1920's was that they were so afraid of the rest of world and so bitter after the treaty of Versaille that they had no problem with the idea that everyone should work to support the Govt. Because to them at the time, the Govt. was a symbol for their national prestiege.

Brutus, sometimes we run into right-wing/left-wing trolls who just come on here to just bait people into arguments. Sometimes we have to see who we are dealing with. Sometimes we go over the top (I do that on occasion), but after all the dust settles we get to know those who may have a differing opinion and can substantiate that opinion with facts and citations in their posts.

You and I have gone around and around on some issues, but I KNOW you are not a troll. Now it seems that other know that as well.

Keep posting. We are all learning something, and that's what it's all about, correct?

sure you would.

Obviously you don't KNOW me... lol

Can't really say that I'd to....

Feisty: If we boycott BP and they go broke...who will pay for the cleanup? You and I....that's who.

Verno:

Good point... however do you TRULY believe BP has any intention of paying for this catastrophe?

The FACT is... you can't believe ANYTHING that's coming out of their lying lips included that they are going to make things 'right'!

I'm sick & tired of hearing they will pay (HAHA) what I want to hear is HOW they're going to STOP it!

I'm sure BP lawyers holed up in some lesbian, S&M, strip club in SoCal with the Exxon Valdez lawyers and discussed how Exxon raped, robbed and rampaged Alaska's wildlife and peoples and how BP could do the very same thing to those poor, ignorant redneck suckers of the gulf coast region.

I'm really waiting for some cajuns to start shooting BP talking heads...and looking forward to it.

I was also a little confused by the conflicting headlines. Even FR re-stated the anti-incumbency theme, and then a paragraph later stated that there was no sweeping theme to yesterday's primaries.

So, the American voters are anti-incumbent, except where they're not.

It makes a more sensational headline to keep repeating anti incumbent. That's all the media is anymore is sensationalism. Got to keep those ratings up and this is how Fox does it.

HI Pat: We are both disappointed about the results in Arkansas. It could be that we lose a senator in Arkansas and gain a Senator in...maybe Arizona. I don't think the people of Arizona will support the guy we used to say "Shouts at Clouds".

Good morning Ron - Yes, you're right! Arizona is going to be another very interesting primary involving Senator McCain. Thanks for the reminder. Time to set my sights ahead on that one.

I think Chris Matthews has joined the teabaggers. Every day he keeps saying how strong they are, and how their changing the political climate. Anyone but me noticed how soft ball he is with Republicans he has on his show? And he always ends the interview with I totally agree with you sir or madam.

Mo:

Good morning-- I have noticed what Chris Matthews has evolved into. I have no respect for fence sitters that are afraid to run for office; yet sits on the side lines and complain. They would rather be apart of the problem as opposed to the soloution.

Howard Fineman is another one-- his washed up magazine (Newsweek) has lost so much credibility in my opinion that he hasn't got an opinion that's worth noting.

Chris Matthews had Rep. Charlie Melancon on his show as a guest --the very person that manufactured fake tears; while on May 30, 2010 James Carville sends me a letter requesting campaign contributions for him via the DSCC--I don’t appreciate being pimped.

There isn’t a single person that Chris Matthews has on his show that can tell him how much oil is spilling from that well and to ask the questions from people that are sitting in a chair on their asses and not out in the Gulf is a bunch of hooey.

Mo; Chris also attempted start sounding off about the President use of the word "whose ass to kick" when LBJ said worse. I find his flip to be cowardly because people that do that are dangerous...

Anita: thought it was just me feeling queasy about Matthews.

I am sick of Chris Matthews and every other pundit who keeps asking when the Spill will be fixed.

Are they stupid or what? Nobody knows with any degree of certainty, so what is the point of asking that question over and over again? Only to have his guests pontificate about what they think. Think?

This Presidency is a marathon, not a sprint and every day won't be easy but to just jump ship like Matthews has done is cowardly.

I have started to turn the TV off when Chris comes on. I used to enjoy his show but not now - wish he did run for some govt job when he was thinking about it. Just turn him off. Like Morning Joe.

Anita - were those really fake tears?

Shelia:

Thank you for your observation as well. Many of us see what Chris Matthews has evolved into. What gets me all worked up is the indecisiveness of his stance on issues. You're either for something or against it and whatever it is you should remain loyal to the cause.

Chris and other media pundits have tried to cast the Tea-Party in various lights-- but have failed miserably. Rachel Maddow was the only person that had the nerve to call them out month's ago. As astro turfers and their origins. We are a well educated public and he needs to clean up his act.

Chris Matthews should stop all of the whining and calling the President’s CHOICE of managing this disaster as CIC in the way he is responding to this crisis with information that not a one of him or his "so called experts" get briefings or knowledge on-- yet calls the President laxly Daisey in his work performance; it’s disrespectful and he should know better than do it.

I thank God that MSM don’t have anymore information than they have; because if they did--God Have Mercy on Us All because there would be mass hysteria.

Elise:

I've been around a long time and have had my share of experiences in the world of corporate politics and trust me-- they were fake. It's all about fund raising and it's every man for themselves at this stage of the game. They realized that President Obama will not be any help to them because we are calling the shots.

It's about the Senate and the Congressmen and women supporting our goals and standing with the President. Did you notice the lie about the public option polls that MSM threw us? They were lies...weren't they? That's way incumbents that didn't support us are losing or being challenged.

Media are at odds as to the current political climate; because they can't figure it out. They are so accustomed to us being predictable that they are really scratching their heads. Luke Russert called it right on last week by stating that "us" bloggers are really determining the elections.

Elise; the people of Louisiana and especially the politicians refuse to ban off-shore drilling. If you LOVED something as hard as he claims to love it-- wouldn't you want to protect it and take care of it?

Good Afternoon All,

I thought it was me. Whew-because I am crazy enough :) And he will NOT shut up long enough to let a guest answer his mile-long question. Before the guest can say boo, Chris chimes in some more. I find myself shouting at the TV at him - STFU and let the guest answer. I am slowly tuning out his show - his voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Silly me was watching Morning Joe and was stunned to find him defending President Obama on the substance of his administration's response to the oil spill. They're still carrying on about him emoting, blah, blah, blah, but Joe went toe-to-toe with that Peter King who was going on and on and on about the President not connecting with the people and Joe practically took his head off when he said the Bush Administration did respond to Katrina in a timely fashion, etc., ya'll know the drill. I am so sick of that narrative. But wait folks, ole Joe then asked why Bobby Jindal was getting a pass because apparently, President Obama authorized 6,000 National Guard of which ole Bobby has used approximately 1,000; $40 million has been authorized for Louisiana and Bobby has used approximately $3 million. Apparently Bobby is not making the best of the resources and yet . . . all the narrative is about the President not emoting.

I am convinced more than ever that folks are playing politics and as usual, the President is the only adult in the room. I did agree with Joan Walsh though, it does seem odd that President Obama has not spoken directly to Tony Hayward (but then again I'd rather speak with Admiral Allen as well). The more I hear about what the President has not done (as opposed to the truth), I am more firm in my support and belief in this President - President Barack Obama!!!!!

Sorry for the rant but I am just tired of the lies, misrepresentations, lack of respect, and whatever else vile, vitriol is directed at President Obama.

Joi G:

LOL!!! your rant was most welcomed! it was excellent actually. I too am firmer and more determined to support President Obama as ever; because Joe realized that it would be to their advantage to defend the President because the majority of the Liberal base will call for a ban on off-shore drilling.

What happens then...they lose the money from big oil campaign contributions. BP just donated to the Senators that are sitting on the investigation panel. HA! HA! While we're being preoccupied with a video of what we know that's happening in the Gulf-- politics as usual is being played out behind the scenes.

Joi; perhaps the President has good reason to NOT speak with Tony Hayward, because he lied to President Obama and I'm just observing-- but I wouldn't be surprised if his "ass" is the first one to get kicked. LOL!!!

Good day to all! Been busy today and really late to the posts. I would like to comment on this Chris Matthews issue. Like most of you I too thought I was by myself with my concerns about him. First of all, he is not a learned person when it comes to plain ole common sense. I have heard him say some of the dummest things but just looked over it because some might say the same about me.

But, lately I have to turn the channel or walk outside to keep from throwing something at my tv. His ranting about what the president has not done is definitely to the extreme. I think it is his lack of understanding about the situation and oil drilling and it frustrates him because he can't find anyone to give him the answers he is looking for. Still, I am sick of him and need to not watch for a while.

Oh well, thanks for allowing me to get that off my chest.

K Mac:

Anytime-- I'm just surfing tonight and I though I'd check my postings-- glad I did. It's fine with me to vent because that was why I posted what I put out here. It seems that there are many of us that share the same anger and frustration. The screaming and yelling with the dramatics are UNREAL.

It's so sad that Johnathan Capehart had to come on his show to explain to him that President Obama can't show the emotional theatrics that they (media) expects him too. Because first of all he was taught NOT to as a Black male that expects to succeed.

If he does that then they (media) would be calling him an angry Black man. What even sadder is the fact that Johnathan Capehart had to appear on his show to school him. I have a son-- I had to raise him the exact same way. Make no mistake-- when they are raised like that...they are deadly because they used their minds verses trash talk..and a force to be reckoned with.

That is why I've been slamming him hard about the insensitivity of their remarks . They have been absolutely disrespectful to the President and to every AA male that's been categorized in that manner. President Obama isn't some trained seal, or amusement for their shows-- I am appalled by it all. They owe every person that voted for him an apology.

There you go being logical again. I agree with both your comments...and indeed, it is very, very sad.

Good Morning Frank and All Concerned about the Spill, it is of great concern to us here in Fl, that our beautiful beaches on both coasts will be off limits for sometime.

My five yr old grandson loves the beach as do all the family, much of our free time, especially in summer is centered there. It is hard to explain some of those pics. to a five yr old, I find it hard to accept what we have allowed be done to ourselves.

Wow, I'm not used to logic on this forum. I agree with you though. I'm an independent and I know neither party will agree 100% with my thoughts. I just pick the one who is the closest whether they are Republican or Democrat

Gingerbread Mamma...

I live in Palm Beach County (as do you if I remember correctly). I just can't imagine the beaches that we go to on the weekends being unusable.

Your comments are much appreciated thoughts from the right. Odd that most of the dems here, myself included, agree with you on so many things yet our legislators can't or won't try to meet in the middle to solve what ails this country.

Children, they clear up the discussion in simple words and focus us on what really matters most.

I agree Pat I think she's seen the light, and it ain't Republican.

Hey Clara - don't worry about the Two Wicked Witches of California - Twitwoman and Phony Fiorina - winning in November. Despite the $70 million Old Nag Twitwoman dropped on her primary she only got a million votes, chump change here. Nope thankfully statewide we have many more Democrats here than dopes of nope though there are local pockets of mental numbness that allow a few of them to slip through. Jerry Brown will make the Old EBay Porn Queen look like a fool who got separated from a whole ton of her money come November and Barbara Boxer will box Phony Fiorina back to the secretarial pool where she should have never risen out of.

Eric,

I completely agree. Carly Fiorina!!!! Are you kidding me? I worked at HP when she took the helm and the very short period that she was the CEO she completely destroyed one of the top computer corporations in the world. She started so much backstabbing politics that it made it sad to work at HP. She never made a business decision that made any sense for HP. It was always about Carly. In fact, the rumor was that Carly didn't even know how to power on her laptop. This was the CEO of HP!!!! HP's board did finally she the light and sent her packing. Of course, she made sure she left with a great severance package. The rest of us that didn't survive due to her decision making; not so much.

Clara - both of those ladies scare the crap out of me!

Dang...everything IS more expensive in California.

7K per vote - YIKES - I lived in California for about 5 years and never felt my vote was worth half this much.

Go Jerry!!

Eric, et al.... Meg Whitman spent her own money where Jerry Brown, for example, spent little money and what he did spend was contributions. In November Whitman will still spend her money, the one contributor method, but will she be able to get enough total contributors to equal votes? I don't see it happening. She waged a dirty campaign against Poizner and barely won. In deep blue California I doubt she's going to do any more than waste her own money (Lord knows she's got it to waste) on a loss in her attempt to be governor. As for Fiorino, her performance was terrible in a field of terrible choices and she is going against Barbara Boxer in November in deep blue California.

Co-signed Nash! I posted my thoughts on Lincoln as well and they are the same as yours.

The Gulf Oil spill-- that is going to be the rip that divides the party once the spill is stopped. I posted that as well...this is going to interesting to watch.

What about the future of the children that the pro-lifers are shrilling about? What future will those children have seeing as how their parents have advocated "drill baby drill"? They wont have an Eco-system; I know that I'm being snarky now but it's worth thinking about.

Hi Bill . . . long time no see.

I will agree that we need some outside of the box thinking - but does "privitize it" really qualify as outside the box? Seems very familiar.

It seems that many of the things that are "privatized" are not too well run . . . folks just get as much money as they can upfront so when the entire pyramid scheme collapses, they can take their profits and start another scheme.

And yes, I know this does not apply to the entire private sector - just the banks, oil industry, mining industry, Wall Street, and health insurance.

And that's only scratching the surface.

Privitizing everything is not the answer. It seems that in fact one of the scariest phrases you can hear today is "I'm from the private sector and I'm here to help."

Kind of like how Blue Cross keeps sending my husband this information about the "health coach" they have assigned him, and all he has to do is give them all this information about his health and lifestyle, and then they can give him "tips" to make his life better.

Or they can use that information to deny his claims or drop his insurance when he needs it most . . . wonder which approach would be more "profitable" for them?

Needless to say we passed on Blue Crosses oh so generous offer - maybe I'm just too cynical.

Hi Nash, good to see you. I'm from the private sector -- but I'm cynical too.

Hey Bill. This is an interesting narrative on the privatization of Social Security. Although I don't agree with your premise (gee, are we surprised??), I do think that the whole process should to be looked at in a different light. The biggest problem I see with privitization is WHERE the monies will be invested. When President Bush proposed this, he wanted to let people use their retirement monies to invest in the stock market. Well, we have seen what happens in the stock market and who makes the most profit from regular people's investments.

Now, if we took those retirement funds and invested them into long term municipal bonds, for instance, then I would be more interested in seeing how this could work. By investing in municipal bonds, we can be investing in our future as well as making sure that the investor - the potential retiree - would get a fair return on their investment. Now, I personally would be more interested in something like that because it is a win-win for everyone. Cash strapped municipalities would have the solid investment(s) that they need for their infrastructure and the (potential) retiree would have a solid investment with a FAIR rate of return.

I do not think that using retirement funds to go 'gamble' on the stock market is either practical or wise. The risk/reward ratio is too high and if the investment is lost (which happens over 50% of the time), there is no time for the investor to recover from the loss. Also, some of the 'paper wealth' SHOULD be transferred from the Stock market into something that is more tangible. Playing in the 'casino' is good for the short term, but what about the long term? Why aren't we planning for 10, 20, 30 years down the road?

Bill, again, I don't always agree with your posts, but you DEFINITELY bring up something that we probably should be looking at. If we can 'hedge' some of the retirement funds into helping our States and cities, I think that the return from this investment will be beneficial for EVERYONE.

Good idea Bill, lets turn your Social Security over to wall street, and I hope your young enough to be affected, if not you have no skin in the game. And please tell us what happens when wall street loses everybodies savings.

And don't get to excited about organized labor flushing 10 million down the drain. If you quit listening to the pundits they got what they wanted form Lincoln.

Privatization SS is not the answer; however, restructuring components of the program will save taxpayers and government millions.

Previously I worked for several insurance companies in their disability department. Over time the insurance companies has been instrumental in reducing their liabilities by having claimants with disability filed for Social Security Disability. As a result, the number of Social Security Disability claimants has sky rocketed. In fairness o the insurance companies, the incompetency of the SS department has contributed to this out of control situation.

In case you are wondering how this work, let me give you an example. 40 year old male with a sever back problem who has been out on disability for more than 6 months filed for disability insurance with his carrier. His monthly benefit is $2500 per month. His policy mandates that filing for SSDI within 6 months of being out on disability. He filed for SSDI and is approved. His SSDI benefits are $2500 per month. Based on his disability policy, SSDI benefits are offsets, which means the disability benefits will be reduced to the minimum benefit of $100 or 10% of the disability benefit (standard policy language).

Disability $2500.00

SSDI $2500.00

$2500-$2500=$0

By receiving SSDI benefits, the insurance company is only liable for paying the minimum benefit which is $100 per month to the claimant. This could go on for years because SS is backlogged and they failed to follow up on these claims. Where the insurance company would cut some one off based on objective evaluations and vocational rehabilitation, SS continues to pay until retirement age.

There is too much abuse and mismanagement in the system. When we talk about SS, we need to talk about the various components of the program and not dump everything into one category.

Interesting commentary on all parts. I know that people are hesitant to entrust their Social Security money to the private sector, but I'm not clear why. We (most of us) entrust our personal retirement money (401K, IRA) to the private sector, and acknowledge that there is risk associated with any and all investments. The idea that the funds be invested in municipal bonds is interesting given the need on the part of many municipalities for funds, but as those bonds are (generally) double tax exempt bonds, (which means that you pay neither state, if issued within your state, nor federal taxes on the interest) it somewhat defeats the purpose of deferral of the retirement monies, at least from my perspective.

Those of us who are fortunate enough to have invested in either a 401K, or an IRA rollover, or whatever personal retirement vehicle we may have, have to be aware that it is a personal responsibility to monitor our investments, and make changes to the distribution of funds chosen for those investments. I saw an interesting article recently that indicated the standard (move more and more of your funds into bonds as you near retirement) play is no longer quite as intelligent, given the increase in life expectancy ages. The article recommended that 60% or so be in bonds at retirement, with the remaining funds being spread over relatively long term investments, including stocks, and that every five years or so, a further percentage of the money be moved to bonds. It stands to reason that this limits an individual's exposure, but it does require a distinct level of personal knowledge of the risk/reward relationship, and what you as an individual are willing to accept as risk.

In the event of privatization, perhaps a personal means testing would be appropriate, much as I believe a means testing ought to be required for Social Security benefits. Does Warren Buffet need Social Security, probably not. Do I expect to receive Social Security? Well, I'd like to, I've paid into it for the past 35 years, but I doubt that I will receive what is currently indicated on my annual statements. It's not likely that when I retire ( I hope in ten years) the money will be available to fund the obligation at the levels indicated.

This is American politics if you wanna play you gotta pay, it is a damn shame but there is a price for representation. Labor paid the buy-in for representation in Arkansas. The sad fact is that in America today if you don,t have cash to spend for them or against them the politicians don't give a damn about you.

Pietro...I rather like your idea of the bond investments. Seems like an easy win/win. This would keep all the $$ away from our politicians who think it's their bank to "borrow" from. Is there a down side to this???...anyone????

But in order to keep SS solvent I think 3 things (and maybe more I haven't considered) need to happen. How about SS gets paid back all that has been "borrowed"? The cap should probably be increased to well over what it is now. SS Disability NEEDS to be better managed as there is definite abuse going on but no one to police it. (Penny seems to know more about this than I)

Vermont Girl, thanks for the kudos, but I must give them to Bill for the idea. I think you are right that the SS fund should be 'refunded' FIRST, most likey from what we are spending on our wars overseas (my opinion). As far as Disability is concerned, I have heard about what is being done, and I personally think that this shoud be SPLIT OUT from Social Security into it's own fund that can be funded as needed. Thanks, Penny, for your insight into what goes in with Disability.

Living in LA, I think that deferral of state and/or income taxes should be a given if we are investing retirement funds in munis or utilities, and the dividends that are derived should be tax free as well. The municipality is using the money to fund the infrstructure; this should be enough 'cushion' for the municipality to work with.

I don't have all of the answers, but I DO know that stocks are NOT the way to go. At LEAST we have some ideas on the table that MAYBE we can get someone in Congress to listen to. That way we are not beholden to the Stock Market(s) and their wild fluctuations.

This has been a VERY interesting discussion.

Were you lucky enough to actually be there, I.R.? It was something even to read about. Nice things have been happening in baseball lately, perhaps the events and the ensueing coverage in Detroit wasn't just an aberattion. Would be nice if some things got better......including my Red Sox.

It's not okay to spend millions on a public office, whether they are your millions, or millions that you take from individuals/unions/or corporations. Unfortunately, that's the way the game has evolved in the United States, and in every state, especially California. Until there is significant reform of campaign financing laws, more and more money will be spent to win a position that pays diddly squat.

Give the Supreme Court's recent ruling regarding corporations, you can expect even more money to be spent to be elected by non-citizens. Here's an easy reform, if you don't reside in the election zone, whether it be a congressional district, or the state (for a senatorial position), you can't contribute to the candidate. The saying goes, "of the people, by the people, and for the people", and the elected individual is supposed to represent the vote of the people right, not the vote of various and sundry non voting (in that election) individuals, unions, or corporations. To carve out an exception for the Supreme Court, if a corporation employes individuals in a given district, they (the corporation) may contribute to the candidate of their choice based upon the number of employees. To be fair, the same opportunity should apply to unions, if they represent a given number of employees in a specific election zone, let them contribute to the candidate of their choice on that basis.

Maybe that would reduce the number of outside entities that try to influence elections based upon their political interest, not the interest of the voters that are to be represented by the winning candidate. I know, this is "pie in the sky", but something must be done to help "we the people" as opposed to "I've got money, therefore, I've got power".

Right on Pat!

And...GO JERRY!

Typical, inflammatory, short-sighted view. In the short term, markets go up and down sometimes dramatically. In the long term, they tend to go up. For folks who are currently in their 20's or 30's, investing part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market would very likely generate a much higher return than the current system. As folks get older and get closer to retirement, prudence (as any financial planner will tell you) requires reducing one's position in volatile equities. Folks with IRAs have been listening to that message for years, and the message would be the same for the privatized piece of Social Security. And anyone in their 60's who took a huge hit during the recent market meltdowns because they imprudently kept too much in stocks, well they got what they deserved. Individual responsibility for managing one's retirement assets is not necessarily a bad thing. Particularly when that approach helps shore up a governemnmt system that is unsustainable.

Bill, Fairfax VA

Individual responsibility for managing one's retirement assets is not necessarily a bad thing. Particularly when that approach helps shore up a governemnmt system that is unsustainable.

Compared to what we have now, a privatization strategy is the only way to go. Currently, you, and your employer pay about 14% of your salary into the SS system. What you get in return is a promise from the government that at some later time they will pay you some of that money back, that is, if there is any money left in the system. If you die before you start collecting that money, you get nothing. If you only get a portion of that money back after you retire and before you die, you're family gets nothing more after you pass. In a privatized system, that money stays with you, and with your family if you should pass.

Bernie Madoff had nothing on the federal government when it comes to Ponzi schemes. I'll take my chances with the market before I take them with a bankrupt federal government.

I gotta agree with Bill on this one. However, if the investment(s) were put into something OTHER than stocks, then we may have some area where we can agree. I think stocks are too volitile for retirement funds. If we could construct a hybrid investment (part into Social Security, part into munis, for instance) I think people would be more inclined to take a closer look at the whole situation.

Pietro -- the choice of investment vehicle should be left to the individual, and I'm pretty sure that was part of the Bush proposal. Folks who are fiftysomething or sixtysomething would be wise to limit their exposure to volatile equities since they are so close to retirment and needing that money. But at the end of the day, it should be an individual choice. If I'm 63 and feel like taking the risk of putting 100% of my stash into stocks, then that's my decision and I will live with the consequences.

JoAnna -- I agree completely. One of the dirty little secrets about Social Security is the so called 'trust find' doesn't have a ton of dollars stuck under a bunch of matresses in the Treasury. Nope, those 'surplus' dollars have already been spent and the 'trust fund' is sitting on a bunch of IOUs in the form of special issue Treasury bonds. Well, the day is fast approaching when those IOUs will need to be converted into cash to pay our retirees, and how is that going to happen? Right now, by issuing more debt. And this is not a new issue, we've known about this day of reckoning for years. Yet we continued to kick the can down the road and thereby screw ourselves. Hard to believe, but sadly true.

Pietro, Columbus, Ohio

I gotta agree with Bill on this one. However, if the investment(s) were put into something OTHER than stocks, then we may have some area where we can agree. I think stocks are too volitile for retirement funds.

There are hundreads of investments besides stocks. Put it in a CD if you want a safe investment. The point is you control a portion of your SS money.

Ah, Bill, here is where we disagree. I am thinking that putting the money in the stock market is a BAD idea. Just like Mo said - what are we going to do when everyone loses their money.

Bill, work with me here. I think there is a place where we BOTH can agree.

If we agree to put Social Security funds into Municipals, a simple CD (like JoAnna suggested), or utilities - this is going to get us all a lot more for our investment dollar that just stocks, in my opinion. You have to understand that not everyone understands (or wants to understand) about CDOs or any other 'esoteric' financial instrument that is out there.

If we restrict our investment(s) into 'safe' investments if we are using Social Security funds, then we will reduce the risk of having the 'OMG' moment if there is a catastrophic loss in the stock market. Also, the monies are invested in US - the United States - and this is something that will make us fiduciarially stronger. Will it reduce the deficit? Possibly, especially when we have States that have people's retirement funds invested in their infrastructure. Of course the details have to be worked out, but I think that people would like an INCREMENTAL approach to investments with their retirement funds than going full bore.

For once Bill, you have a good idea. Let's see if we can develop it.

Pietro said "For once Bill, you have a good idea. Let's see if we can develop it."

Heart be still.

Far too many people would mismanage their funds or be talked into bad investments by shady brokers and would end up destitute. What about somebody who dies young before investments could accrue to anything that would sustain their family. I don't think you can eliminate SS altogether, at best an incremental approach on a portion of the FICA tax could be tried.

Pietro -- on a more serious note, OK I'll work with you on this. But I will make this point. The criticism of Social Security privatization that one's retirement funds would evaporate in a nasty stock market is a canard. You have to think long term as in an entire lifetime. Look at any long term stock market chart and you will see a steady upward climb. One big reason for that is that the population increases over time, and as the population increases Colgate sells more toothpaste, Ford sells more cars etc and those additonal sales are eventually reflected in the stock prices of companies.

Short term market gyrations are certainly part of the game, but individuals need to consider their age and how close they are to retirement as they decide where to invest their funds. As I stated earlier, if you're in your 20's or 30's it is highly likely that over your working lifetime you will get a better return by investing in the stock market than from the government program. But the older you get, the less one might prudently invest in stocks since one's timeframe for riding out a rough period has shrunk. And I would also point out that investments in Apple or Microsft or Ford or whatever are every bit as beneficial to the overall economy and our quality of life as investing in local roads and bridges via municipal bonds.

And for those who think that investing in stocks even by folks in their 20's or 30's is too dangerous, I will say this. Investing in the stock market is investing in the future of America. If you take the position that it's too dangerous for a 25 year old to invest in stocks because when that person is 65 he/she may be sittting on a losing investment, that's akin to say your confidence in the future of Americal is close to zero. And if that's the way some folks really feel, then they may as well lock themselves in their room, put their head between their legs and kiss their butt good by. Because if their view of the future is that bleak, then we're all in a heap of trouble and we may as well pack it in right now.

Bill, think that anyone who is investing for retirement should be doing so in a CONSERVATIVE fashion (I cannot believe I just wrote that!!) in my opinion. I would rather have a good, SOLID investment (like munis or utilities) making a FAIR amount every year, knowing that I will not touch that investment for 10, 15, or 20 years than to play the casino that we all know as Wall Street. I disagree that by NOT investing in the stock market we are NOT investing in America. I think that if SS Funds are invested in munis or utilities we ARE investing in America because then we would have a FUNDED infrastructure and Main Street America would directly benefit.

Your point about investing in the stock market - if you can do that with your OWN monies that are NOT retirement funds, then go ahead. The whole point of retirement planning to to make sure that you have funds to live on in your twilight years, correct? What better way to have guaranteed dividends coming back to you if you invest in munis or utilities?

I may be wrong about this, and I will defer to those who do investing for a living, but this would solve a BUNCH of problems with SS, would it not?

The problem Peitro is that munis and utilities probabaly won't give you the kind of return over your working lifetime you will need to fund your retirement bliss. Once you are retired, those investments make more sense because they will provide the steady (but small) return you mentioned. But if I'm 25 or 30 (would that it were so) I'd be looking for (and needing) a much better return.

Let me also say that different folks have different tolerances for risk. From your posts, I would glean that you are a risk averse investor looking for the safest places to put your hard earned money. And that's fine, I have no issue with that. But the universe of investors is composed of folks who have varying toleances for risk, and the 'one size fits all' approach you like may not be to the liking of other folks. And those folks should have the freedom (yes, I said freedom) to choose how they want to invest their retirement funds.

Bill, I can see where you are coming from in your post. I submit, though, that if we are talking Social Security retirement funds that we would WANT those funds to earn the slow,steady interest and be as risk adverse as possible. I do not think that we would want to 'prop up' those investors who decide to play the Wall Street Casino and lose their shorts in the process. Once they lose their monies, would we or would we not have MORE people on the dole? Isn't that what we are trying to avoid?

I agree with you that people should have the freedom to choose how they want to INVEST, but when it comes to retirement funds, I DO think that we should probably restrict were the funds are invested jsut so people will not bankrupt themselves because of ignorance. I know that this is against everything you hold dear, Bill, but there probably needs to be some guidelines built into this so people cannot hurt themselves.

Yes Pietro, it is against everything I hold dear. The 'Wall Street as casino' metaphor has limited applicability. In particular, it might hold some water in the short run becasue markets do what they do in the short run and market performance is not necessarily rationalized by any underlying reality. But in the longer term stock prices are reflective of the fundamentals of the companies. Also, no one is suggesting that mom and pop investors dip their toes into the esoteric world of mortgage backed securities or other exotic instruments that even the pros don't fully understand. Personally, I would support use of index funds that track performance of broad baskets such as the S&P 500 or Nasdaq 100. That way an investor avoids having his investment go to zero when firms like Bill's Horse and Buggy Company goes out of business. The upside isn't as big as getting in on the ground floor of Microsoft or Cisco, but the upside is much better than staid investments like utilities or munis. I can see that if we were sitting across the table negotiating this stuff, it might be time for a break. And that's fine, that's the way the process works. I'm done here for the day, but thanks for the invigorating exchange.

Bill, your idea is a good idea and I thank you for the exchange as well. It has me looking at things like retirement investments a little differently, andthat is a VERY good thing. We can resume where we LEFT off (pun intended) another time.

This was a good exchange. The only thing I want to point out is that LONG term speculation - for those who are aged 55-65 - (who can honestly say they did everything right) essentially SCREWED them over from mid 2008 until late last year. The only way we collectively win is if there is an essential 'stop gap' policy for those times when econimies DON'T grow. The panic that ensued once this demo started losing mega thousands rapidly is the true canard and underscores the need for SS in the first place. Markets are volatile and risky. Thanks to the stellar education taking place EQUALLY throughout the country - not every one is making sound, reasoned decisions because they don't always draw the same conclusions when presented with the same data. Thus a multi-interventionist approach,...or something like that.

Eric:

What's even sadder is the fact that Louisianans don't want to stop off-shore drilling even in the midst of this disaster. They even allow the stuff to pass through canals. On July 23, 2008-- they had an oil spill.

Fact:

Earlier that day, Louisiana’s worst fuel spill in nearly a decade stopped all river traffic near New Orleans, halting 100 ships, including coal, grain and oil barges, on the vital transportation artery. The gunk floated on the river in a blotchy purple-and-green film that threatened birds, fish and plant life along the southernmost 100 miles of the waterway.

More than 420,000 gallons of fuel were released into the river, when a tanker collided with a barge transporting the fuel and cut it in half near downtown New Orleans on July 23, according to federal officials.

I posted this "again" just to draw attention to what WILL be a fight from the southern states once this disaster is contained because more Liberals will look to the President to STOP off-shore drilling-- and the southern states will demand that it's allowed to continue. The argument will be jobs...just my prediction.

Anita, I saw something on this a few days ago concerning Louisiana. I was a bit surprised that even with the spill washing up on the shore, people in LA were still willing for drill for more. It was definitely a head-scratcher. But, as I read in the article, and according to the article, this makes PERFECT SENSE for the people in LA, even though their coastline is being ruined.

Why is that?

I submit that there are no other OBVIOUS alternatives to what people in LA are used to. Am I wrong?

Anyone?

Eric

Of course BP is going to lie about how much oil is pumping into the Gulf...they are responsible to pay per gallon or barrel of oil that is leaking. So of course they must lowball it. Never let it be said that BP wants to pay any extra money for remedies to those hurt. Their share holders won't receive as much in dividends if they pay for what is actually spilling.

Now I hear more rumblings that the pipe below the sea floor is most likely ruptured also. There have been no images coming from the seabed, could it be that oil is coming up from all over the seabed floor? We have no business drilling where we can not fix the problem.

Pietro:

I was on another site and had an opportunity to exchange discourse with someone from Louisiana. It appears that they really don't care about their shorelines being riuned-- that's been an on-going issue due to off-shore drilling. They want the money-- they are get 13 billion in revenue (ha!) and they are still looking to the Government (us) to support their dangerous habits.

Fact:

The $70 billion industry employs more than 320,000 people in the state. Unemployment rates in some coastal parishes hover around 3.5 percent, compared to 5.5 percent nationally. And the oil industry supports both the only deep-sea oil port in the United States and a Gulf of Mexico port that handles more vessels than even the Mississippi River.

Fact:

While states on the east and west coasts debate whether to drill for offshore oil and natural gas, Louisiana and three other Gulf Coast states hold up their offshore drilling operations as proof that they can produce oil and gas without hurting the environment. (big lie)

Fact:

Louisiana’s oil and gas companies are backing state and federal coastal restoration efforts, too. Erosion endangers pipelines that cross the area, as well as roads and other infrastructure needed to support the industry.

The gradual land loss was apparent during the helicopter tour. Where salt water seeps in, normally bright green land fades to yellow and then brown before it is submerged. Experts say the sea is swallowing a football field’s worth of land every 38 minutes.

Go figure....

Anita, THIS explains why Gov. Jindal sent the letter to President Obama. I really thought that it was a STUPID move by Gov. Jindal, but as I was reading this, I saw this issue being discussed on CNN. I have to admit I was FLOORED by the report. The people there are MORE worried about the economy and the monies that they are NOT getting from the Oil and Gas Industry than they are about the environment that they live in. The report on CNN was about how the Oil and Gas companies are looking at other alternatives than the Gulf of Mexico for their 'business portfolios' and the residents of Louisiana are completely freaking out.

I initially remarked that you cannot fix STUPID when dealing with this catastrophe. I RESCIND that remark here today because there is a DEEP disconnect with the people who live in these places and conventional wisdom.

I am more saddened than anything. I thought this was a Republican/Democrat issue, but it is far deeper than that. I cannot fathom HOW a person can live in a toxic environment and they think that it is OK as long as the money from the polluters keeps filling the coffers. Was there any thought about health issues (cancers, melanomas)?

I am floored by what I am reading and seeing.

Anyone else see what I see?

Pietro, I agree with you, it is shocking to see this reaction. But remember Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Food, clothing, resources and shelter are basic human needs. If those are threatened, as they are in the Gulf, this reaction becomes more understandable.

For many, concern for the environment will go out the window until their lives and livelihoods are stable again.

Pietro:

I am so GLAD that you see and understand what I've been witnessing as well. That is why I keep posting these findings. MSM is attempting to cast them as "poor" Louisiana; when in fact that's not the case. I found it had to believe myself.

They would rather live in filth with a toxic environment as opposed to letting go of the greed. That greed almost destroyed them when Katrina blew through there. The very lawmakers that are crying broke-- looking for federal assistance; should have been fighting tooth and nail to keep developers from developing Marsh lands that were there to protect the city from natural disasters.

I refuse to eat a singel drop of seafood from that region because we can't trust our federal authorties that should be protecting our food chain.

Pietro; perhaps I'm being cynical-- but the people of Louisiana has a survival culture that's second to none and I really don't trust them. As my mother once said-- they are crying with a loaf of bread under one arm and rib eye's under the other. I'll probably get hit hard for that comment; but we witnessed it first hand in our state during the Katrina evacuations.

I think that I need to start tuning to CNN because they seem to be focusing on factual findings. I see what you see and I hope that many other open their eyes because Jindal and the merry band of Republicans/Democratic lawmakers are protecting their interest on the backs of us taxpayers. I've had it with the Poor New Orleans chant that MSM and lawmakers in that area keeps playing us with-- if you love something...you protect it and take care of it.

If those are threatened, as they are in the Gulf, this reaction becomes more understandable. For many, concern for the environment will go out the window until their lives and livelihoods are stable again.

Gail:

I don't agree with your comment for many reasons. Many are calling for a ban on off-shore drilling; while you're defending those dangerous toxic actions. Their decisions to drill in the same waters that we get seafood from is alarming.

There is no excuse for what they are advocating and this spill serves to reason. Is it okay for coal miners to die because of companies laxed regulations in our mineral mines and safety administration? At what point do we make the transition to clean energy and what will it take to get our attention? Of course those coal miners need jobs...but when do we make the change and make it right for them?

FACT:

Louisiana Senate President Joel T. Chaisson II (D) said his state underscored its commitment to preserving wetlands while allowing oil exploration through the passage of a constitutional amendment in 2006 that dedicates all money the state receives from offshore oil production to coastal restoration. Only after voters passed that amendment — with a record-breaking 82 percent in favor — did Congress agree to share the royalties with the state.

Gail...it's all about the benjamins...

Gail, I understand what you are saying, and I can appreciate that. However, if you pollute the very environment that PRODUCES the things you need for a livelyhood, then what are you supposed to do?

I can see Anita's point as to where everyone is looking out for #1 and they could care less about the environment in which they live. So does that mean the rest of us (the othe 49 States) will have to pick up the slack for Louisiana? When the money dries up (and it will for a long time to come), are we, the taxpayers in the other 49 states going to have pay more so that we can 'restore' Louisiana's wetlands? Isn't THIS considered SOCIALISM?

I have never really understood the mentality of the people in the Gulf region, and I have to admit, I am REALLY scratching my head right now. So, what now? Will we have images of Gulf States people who are starving? What happened to the GOP masters that are representing that part of America? Why are we not seeing a more cohesive 'coalition' of lawmakers - state, local and Federal - making a concerted effort to help their constituents?

Lotsa questions, not many answers. Thanks Anita and Gail for your insight. If anyone reading this is from the Gulf States, I would DEFINITELY like to know what is going through everyone's minds down there.

Pietro:

I wasn't able to get information about the amount of money "if" any that residents along those shores receives-- you do remember that Alaska resident's receive compensation for their mineral rights; I'm not saying that the people of Louisiana does-- but their claim for demanding 50% of the oil lease money is because of the expense of maintaining the water ways.

They also feel that that in addition to what "Congress" voted to give them-- they think that the Government (us) are suppose to take care of them.

Our POINT again...when does it becomes that state issue? they get 13 billion from those leases. I think that they need to be audited because I don't see the fairness of supporting a bad habit on the backs of us taxpayers. Does the majority of taxpayers support cigarette smoking?

Anita, I'm not defending off-shore drilling. I was simply stating a well-known fact - that when people feel threatened the necessities of life become the most important thing to them.

I was talking about the ordinary folks who are losing their livelihoods.

Is that a controversial stance?

Pietro, I think that BP and maybe other oil companies will move their operations to the shores of other countries who have even fewer and more lax regulations than the U.S. They will take their jobs with them. As Anita says, "It's all about the Benjamins."

This will leave the people of the Gulf in even more of a bind. What to do? I don't know. I'm not that smart.

Gail:

It's not controversial now; but given time it will be. My point with making my original observation as were Pietro's was the fact that; "now their livelihoods" are being looked at as an issue when they STILL refuse to band off-shore drilling in those waters that they obtain their livelihood from and we EAT from.

I don't care who or what shore is affected without off-shore drilling and Alabama is one of them as well Gail; but I see many dangers due to laxed regulations in all of the states. Louisiana's in particular because they have a "very vulnerable" Eco-system that's there to protect them; yet those that "feel threaten by this oil spill refuses" to band off-shore drilling now as well as when prior spills were recorded.

You are right-- they have GOT to survive...but not off of an irresponsible way of life and especially when we will have the tab to pick up.

Nojo . . . did you just admit that you hate President Obama because he is not Bill Clinton?

That really explains alot . . . I always wondered what was the true source of deep seated anger at the President . . . starting to feel like leftover PUMA bile . . . just speculating.

Good to see you this morning anywho . . . and I'm sure the President will take a lesson . . . right after he finishes shoveling all the poop that was left for him to clean up. :o)

Nash-I don't HATE anybody. It isn't in my nature. I dislike and disagree with just about all of Obama's policies, and I have an aversion for worship of any human being.

Nojoe . . . I'm glad to hear that you are not a hater . . . but if go back and read some of your posts over the past year or two, you might understand how I got so confused! :o)

Nash...

You're not the only one confused? lol! Someone said the other day that outside of the 'poll dancing' she used to be at least 'readible'...

That train left the station months ago! The fixation with the Obama's entertaining is fascinating however... lol

NoJo. Sorry to burst your bubble, but democrats aren't disappointed about Obama's pragmatic nature. If any are disappointed, it is because he isn't far left progressive enough. Your dislike of Pres Obama is a personal freedom but the rest of us don't buy the twisted logic that you spin to make it sound as if it is his policies you hate and not the man.

No Jo- You must have a "man crush" on President Obama b'cuz he's ALWAYS on your mind....

Young people would call it a "bromance".

Ummm guys.... NoJoAll Blow is a SHE! Yes.. yes... I know it's hard to believe but it's true!

Speakin' of which- what the hell is that thing that married Rush Screwbaugh? If Viagra helps a loser like that bloated pig, I want to score me some!

Rush thought his Viagra was a suppository, then he snorted some. Someone should tell him that his ass and head have been swollen for more than 4 hours and he should call a doctor.

Goes to show you that money CAN buy you 'love'... even if you're a sweaty bloated pig... LOL

At least Rush will now have to answer to somebody!

Come November , the DINOS will Lose. Come November, The DINOS will have to answer for the BIGGEST DISASTER in American history. Way bigger than Katrina. Bammy boy has a lot of explaining to do.