WASHINGTON - Forty-two states lost jobs last month, up from 29 in July, with the biggest net payroll cuts coming in Texas, Michigan, Georgia and Ohio.

The Labor Department also reported Friday that 27 states saw their unemployment rates increase in August, and 14 states and Washington D.C., reported unemployment rates of 10 percent or above...

By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer Christopher S. Rugaber, Ap Economics Writer

I'm sorry but I find it very hard to believe that in 8 states, not one person lost their job; not one?  Oh sure I understand the 'net loss' calculation; but did this headline really have to be said in this way, really?

Maybe I don't understand the way Washington does it counting but I'm pretty darn sure each and every state in our nation has lost at least one job for decades.

I think maybe the Associated Press by showing these words in this manner, in their headline, "42 STATES LOST JOBS LAST MONTH" is probably making some of their Republican friends pretty darn happy and may have been done to do just that.

Somebody with the know how needs to travel back in time and see first of all, during Bill Clinton's last term, just how many States DID NOT lose jobs over the same amount of time as being talked about here.  Was that ever put in writing by AP?  Then that same somebody needs to look at the years 2007 or 2008 and find out how many States LOST JOBS (I don't care if it's just one)  in the same amount of time.

It's only logical that States LOSE JOBS every month, even in a good economy.  To use these sort of headlines can mean AP had only one goal in mind -- scare the American people into believing the recession/depression is still here and they should continue to stop spending money. 

Be Scared, Be Very Scared!

President Obama:

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken.  That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.

This statement President Obama makes no sense.  Its three statements merged into one.   You don't want to give coverage to illegal aliens.  You think the immigration system is broken.  And you strongly support getting all legal citizens quality health insurance.  I'm not sure if this was intentional or just a mistake.

Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

This is one issue where Democrats and I part.  If we know these people are here illegally then by law we must send them back home at the very least. 

To assume that we can pick a day out of the blue and declare all illegal aliens American citizens is ludicrous.  The very next day, thousands more will cross our borders wanting the same privileges, whether or not we make that declaration that day.  What did the declaration do for America?  Absolutely nothing; Just as former president Ronald Reagan's amnesty bill did for us.  Accept to give us even more people that we are legally required to care for.  People for the most part that didn't start paying into our systems like Social Security, workmen's compensation or Medicare till later in their lives if at all.

The money we have in Social Security, Medicare, Public Aid and Medicaid was paid for by legal citizens.  If you use that money to give health care or food stamps to illegal aliens (or immigrants if you prefer), you are stealing money from legal American citizens.

If you want to increase the amount of immigrants we allow in -- then do so.  If you want put these people on a 'special' listing giving them first choice access to citizenship once they go back where they came from, let's talk about it; but don't expect me to want to give them something for nothing, especially since they broke our laws to begin by waltzing right into our country without permission.  That's no different than giving somebody that broke into my house free room and board.

Instead of giving Mexico money we should be asking for money in return for supporting their citizens in our hospitals and public aid systems. 

Hey, that's an idea.  Each time an illegal alien walks into an ER in a hospital, we take their name and report them to Mexico - demanding reimbursement for any costs incurred same goes for any other public assistance they receive.

It's a miracle.  Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly show on Fox has endorsed a public option.  While this endorsement is more than welcome, I am shocked, shocked I say, to hear it come from Mr. O'Reilly, especially since he's been fighting it since day one.

Here is what he said while discussing the issue with Nina Owcharenko a Heritage Foundation scholar:

NINA OWCHARENKO: Well, it has massive new federal regulation. So you don't necessarily need a public option if the federal government is going to control and regulate the type of health insurance that Americans can buy.

O'REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.

Hallelujah

I might also point out that the Republicans as a whole and blue dog Democrats have been arguing that Government (having a Public Option) should not be controlling the way our health care system is ran.   Has anybody stopped to realized that by telling the private insurance companies what they can and cannot do as far as running their business is, in fact, government controlling our health care system? 

What do you call requiring the insurance agency to cover all citizens, no matter what their pre-existing medical conditions are?  What about requiring them to have no cap on coverage amounts, isn't that government controlling the private industry?  What about telling these same companies how they must cover certain preventive care, isn't that government control?

These Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats are willing to CONTROL the insurance agency and the medical provider's way of business; but with the same breath, they tell us we should not be creating a government controlled health insurance policy (public option)?

The Republican Party is going to pot, literally, and they are taking the rest of the nation DOWN with them.  They'd rather fight then switch sort of speak.  They've seemed to have decided it's war time.

Members of their Party are coming to political rallies with guns and hate posters, yelling out "You Lie" to the president of United States during a speech to a joint session in Congress and calling for the death of our President.

The Republican leadership in Congress today basically made fun of the Speaker of the House for asking her comardes to tone down their voices, asking people to calm down a bit so as not to end up with tragic events such as that during the 70's in San Francisco, California with Harvey Milk being killed.  Milk and Mayor Moscone were both killed back then, what came after was just plain terrible for that part of our nation.  The murderer got off with about five years jail time.  At one point 61 police officers and 100 rioters and gay residents of the Castro had been hospitalized. City Hall, police cruisers, and parts of the city was damaged to the tune of over a million dollars.

Are there any respectable Republicans left that believes in the Democratic way of governance?  Or have they all decided to convert to fear mongering, name calling, denying the president is even the president, even to the point of threatening violence by bringing guns to presidential rallies?

Somebody needs to ask where George HW Bush's, the Bob Dole, John Warner, Trent Lott, George Mitchell and Sam Nunn are on this issue?  Why haven't they and other elders like them stepped out from their seclusion and told their fellow comrades to 'curb it' -- stop this nonsense talk and do it now? 

Are there any grown ups left in the Republican Party or have they all bent over for the bullies in their neighborhoods?

I'm sure most of you have heard of high schools holding mock jury trials right?  If you haven't here is a little bit about them from Wikipedia:

A mock trial is a contrived or imitation trial. It is similar to a moot court, but mock trials simulate lower-court trials, while moot court simulates appellate court hearings. Attorneysvolunteers to test theories or experiment with each other. In a mock trial the rules are often abbreviated in order to focus on particular parts of the trial. preparing for a real trial might use a mock trial consisting of

Mock trial is also the name of an extracurricular program in which students participate in contrived or fake trials to learn new skills and compete with each other. At some law schools, the term trial advocacy is used for the program. Various organizations, such as state bar associations, sponsor mock trial/trial advocacy competitions for middle school students, high school students, college students, and law students.

Interscholastic mock trials take place on three levels. High-school competitive mock trial has an annual national competition governed by the National Mock Trial Association. The competition on the college circuit is governed by the American Mock Trial Association. The college circuit also has an unofficial online forum at Perjuries Mock Trial. Finally, there is mock trial/trial advocacy at the Law School level such as the National Trial Competition Texas Young Lawyers Association and the American College of Trial Lawyers. hosted by the

Most of you also know about the famous reality shows that are seen on television on a weekly basis such as Big Brothers, Fear Factor, The Amazing Race, Survivor and many others. 

Reality television is a genre of television programming that presents purportedly unscripted dramatic or humorous situations, documents actual events, and usually features ordinary people instead of professional actors.

I thought of this idea a few years ago but it didn't go over too well, perhaps it would now.  Why not create a reality show using real people as House of Representatives and Senators of United States.  There would be Democrats, Republicans and Independents.  There would be a president as well, consisting of the Party currently in charge in real life.  The Speaker of the House and Majority leader of the Senate would be a well known former Representative and Senator of a previous Congress.  Each team would have one or two former Representatives or Senators leading them (that Party) on the show.

Each season, the show would work on a major bill(s) that the real Congress is working on.  All negotiations would be made public - except during the taping of the show.  All parties would at that time know nothing about what the other team is saying or doing.

Keep in mind this show would have to be Pre-Recorded.  That's how they would be able to do this individual Party negotiating, behind closed doors.

There should be absolutely NO outside influence on these participants.  Just like Survivor, they must stay at the debates till the season is recorded -- no going home.

The television audience of course, would end up seeing and hear what was said during those meetings during the season's show.

For political junkies like myself, we'd get to see how things are done in Congress and with the Administration.  What really goes on behind those closed doors?  How does a bill finally get passed?

I think this kind of program that could end up having potential influence on what's currently going on in the real Congress and the Administration.  What do you think?

A U.S. study by UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas has found that fat from certain foods such ice-cream and burgers heads to the brain.

Once there, the fat molecules trigger the brain to send messages to the body's cells, warning them to ignore the appetite-suppressing signals from leptin and insulin, hormones involved in weight regulation -- for up to three days.

"Normally, our body is primed to say when we've had enough, but that doesn't always happen when we're eating something good...

Well I feel much better now knowing that it's not my fault that I am overweight (fat), it's those fat molecules sending coded messages through out my body that's causing me to continue eating.

Dang!  Can you sue a fat molecule?

When 75% of the country is pushing for some form of a public health insurance choice and when you can't seem to get the 60 votes required to pass such a bipartisan bill in the Senate with such an option, what do you do?  You create a diversion.  You divert their attention to another potential problem and that problem has to be something that completely 'shuts down' the push for a public insurance option.

What you do is, you release new information (Senator Baucas's health care plan) that will reportedly cause those demanding for a public option to stop and say, "Whoa, wait a minute!  You're going to charge me 13% of my income that I either don't currently spend or you're going to charge me 13% over and above what I already pay for health care,  for so called reform that's suppose to save me money?"

According to reports,

Oldest Americans buying private insurance could be charged five times what youngest Americans are charged.

Beginning in 2013, individuals would be required to have health insurance. Individuals and families who do not have insurance for more than three months in a given year would be subject to an annual excise tax of $750 and $1,500, respectively, if their income is below 300% of the federal poverty line (or $66,150 for a family of four). Tax penalties for individuals and families with incomes above that would be $950 and $3,800. The excise tax would be waived for Native Americans and individuals and families whose health-insurance costs would be more than 10% of their annual income.

What kind of subsidies would the government offer to low-income Americans and small businesses to help them buy insurance?
Starting in 2013, the Federal Government would offer a refundable tax credit to low- and middle-income individuals and families who purchase certain policies through the state exchanges. The credit would be available to individuals and families who earn up to 300% of the federal poverty level, which for a family of four would be about $66,000 in 2009. It would be provided on a sliding scale, with the level of credit "based on the percentage of income the cost of premiums [not including deductibles or copays] represents, rising from 3% of income for those at 100% of poverty to 13% of income for those at 300% of poverty." Individuals earning between 300% and 400% of the poverty level would be eligible for a credit after their share of the premium hits a maximum of 13% of income. The credits would be paid directly to insurers through the exchange, with policyholders paying the remaining amount.

Say what?

If President Obama wants to lose what ever support he currently holds he'd best shut down this Baucas plan down FAST.

This bill sounds more like a Republican Plan, especially the TAX REFUNDABLE CREDIT part.

If people had the money to buy insurance don't you think they would buy it?  Giving them a tax credit for something you assume they have -- is nonsense.

Exactly what is the consumer gaining with this plan?  Sounds more like a Help the Insurance Company bill if I ever saw one....so on and so on.

Going back to my original premise, this bill is exactly what it will take to get that 'Public Option cries off the minds of Americans.

Now everybody will talk about what it's going to cost middle income families for health care -- it's going after their pocketbooks now.

So long as the bill was only going after high wage earner's tax cuts everybody was for it; but now that they see what will be coming out of their own pockets, all hell will break loose.

What better way is there to enter into conference -- with all options from the House and now the Senate to work with-- and Americans scared to death about what they will soon be required to pay.

Public Option demand fades away.....people are now too worried about where they will find the money to pay for health care requirements.

The Public Option dies in conference and a Co-Op appears instead.  The cost of insurance will be lowered as well.

The whole idea is to make the Public Option crowd -- GO AWAY!

TOKYO, Japan -- In the country with the lowest birth rate in the world, the newly empowered Democratic Party of Japan has proposed a solution: pay to procreate.

As part of the manifesto that helped the DPJ rout the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party in last month's election, families will receive 26,000 yen (about $280) per month for each child through junior high school.

"We could use the money; it would help us manage," said Jun Otake, a human resources manager at Japan Airlines who stands to receive $840 per month for his three young daughters. "People need help regardless of the number of children, but obviously more children mean more mouths to feed."...

It isn't easy to raise children in Japan, where the birth rate of 1.37 children per woman has fallen well below the replacement level of 2.07 and contributed to structural problems facing the world's fastest-aging society. The reasons cited are myriad: the cost of schooling, a lack of daycare options and an increasing number of women unwilling to interrupt or forego their careers among them.

When I was in Japan back in the 70's (showing my age), this country was over populated and asking people to 'stop' procreating.  Funny how time changes things.

After reading this story about Japan, I keep having this vision popping up in my head showing me advertisements from some group in the south offering to pay the white population in America money to go out and 'procreate'?

I also have a vision that keeps popping up where this same group is paying young couples to raise their kids with right winged extremists beliefs.

Just kidding....maybe not.

Just a quick question for anybody.  We keep hearing about polls showing President Obama's and the Democratic Party's approval or disapproval ratings but we never see any polls showing why people feel the way they feel.  The same goes for the Republican Party polling.

If people are moving away from Obama - why?  Is it because of his foreign policy, his stimulus package working or not, his health care bill and if so why (is it because he's not backing public option, or that he is?), is it because he bailout banks and wallstreet or because he refused to investigate the torture issue during the past 8 years?

Why are people angry at Congress and who of?

The reason for polls going up and down sure would explain a great deal if we had them.

In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, former Democratic President Jimmy Carter attributed much of the conservative opposition that President Obama is receiving to the issue of race.

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man," Carter said. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that share the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans."

Carter continued, "And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."

While I happen to agree that a lot of the anger currently being spewed across the nation is partially about the President's race, I also believe a lot of Americans are truly angry about the way the economy is, the lack of jobs, the two endless wars we're in and the bailouts that happened beginning with the Bush administration in 2008.

If former president Carter thinks he is helping the nation and the president by bringing out this issue, I'm afraid he is wrong.  I think Carter's comments will have the reverse effect and cause even more problems for President Obama during a time when he's already got enough on his plate.

Can't you just see the right wingers bringing the Reverend Wright issue back into play again?  I also see video's of the Obama vs Hillary Clinton campaign being repeated on air with them arguing over the "race card".

While there is some proof of the race issue being out there, there's not enough to really ride the train with sort of speak.  Instead, it will be the conservatives and Republican Party that get on board accusing President Barack Obama of using the "race card" again (their words), just as his campaign was accused of doing against Senator Hillary Clinton.

Even though not one word has been spoken about the issue by Obama himself, it will be 'he' that is accused of using race to win support and rally the Democratic base.

So, I sincerely hope the base and the left winged media stay clear of this issue, at least until there is more proof than just a few angry folks out there marching with signs that imply a racial tone.  Keep in mind, there were a lot of hateful signs and posters out marching against the Bush administration as well.  That didn't mean the whole nation was feeling those same things.

We've been hearing lately about a trigger the Democratic Party may end up offering to the Republican Party as a concession for some of them to vote for any health care reform bill.  The trigger will be setup in such a way that if the private sector fails to bring down the cost of health insurance the government will then create a public option for customers to buy into, something similar to Medicare.

Well I say if we're going to have a trigger why not create one for a SHUT DOWN date of a public option. 

Why not go ahead an provide a public health insurance option and if after a certain amount of time it proves out indeed to be eliminating the private sector insurance companies, as the Republican Party claims it will, then shut the public option down and tell those that signed up for it that they must return to the newly created Health Insurance Exchange that the President mentioned during his joint session of Congress last week to choose a new health insurance policy.

We've heard that any health care reform will take a total of 4 years to implement fully.  Well during that four years, create the new public option as well.  Then, like the whole health care reform bill, re-evaluate the public option and reform bill as a whole in 6 years.  If the public option is indeed killing the private sector, than shut it down.

If this idea is passed this year, that means we'd be seeing the new health care reform beginning by 2013.  This means that either President Obama would still be President or we'd have a Republican or Independent president by then.  Since the plan hasn't been given a chance to 'work', I'm betting that neither Party would have reason to eliminate it especially after spending millions of dollars to get it up and ready.  So the plan will continue onward.

If the bill is set up to shut down the public option part in 2020 (a full ten years, 4 to create, 6 to test out), that means we'd once again could have a different Party in control of the government.

My guess is, that most in congress by this time, just as they would fight the idea of stopping any tax cuts when those deadlines show up) would refuse to shut down the public option in 2020, no matter who is in charge (unless it is proven beyond a doubt to be doing serious damage to the private sector), therefore, the public option will live on and we should all see reduced benefits in years to come because everybody will then be covered.  We'll have actual competition going on, which is the ultimate goal.

Some say that the trigger currently being discussed is just a way to placate those that are demanding a public option (the Democratic Party base and doctors), and that the testing of whether the private sector is truly cutting costs, will never materialize, therefore the public option will be dead.  I happen to agree with this opinion.  We need results, not placated.

A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public health care option.

A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) study published in Monday's New England Journal of Medicine shows that 63 percent of physicians support a health reform proposal that includes both a public option and traditional private insurance....

Only 27 percent support a private-only reform that would provide subsidies for low-income individuals to purchase private insurance.

Surveying a nationally representative sample of 2,130 physicians across America, researchers Salomeh Keyhani, M.D., M.P.H., and Alex Federman, M.D., M.P.H., from Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City queried physicians about a range of options for expanding health insurance coverage...

Among those physicians who identified themselves as members of the American Medical Association, 62.2 percent favored both the public and private options. The AMA has opposed a public option, saying that it "threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers."

A majority of physicians surveyed (58 percent) also supported expanding Medicare eligibility to those between the ages of 55 and 64.

So, the majority of doctors, the ones that end up receiving less payments for their health care giving, from any public option, want a public option?

This is surprising --even to me;  Seeing as how most doctors today refuse to take Medicare patients, this is a bit of confusing information.

What caught my eye however is, their supporting the EXPANDING of Medicare eligibility.  Where have I heard that idea before...Hm'mm -- Oh, I know, from ME!

Tens of thousands of conservative protesters, many complaining that the nation is racing toward socialism, massed outside the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, angrily denouncing President Obama's health-care plan and other initiatives as threats to the Constitution.

The crowd -- loud, animated and sprawling -- gathered at the West Front of the Capitol after a march along Pennsylvania Avenue NW from Freedom Plaza. Invocations of God and former president Ronald Reagan by an array of speakers drew loud cheers that echoed across the Mall. On a windy, overcast afternoon, hundreds of yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flags flapped in the breeze.

"Hell hath no fury like a taxpayer ignored," declared Andrew Moylan, head of government affairs for the National Taxpayers Union, urging protesters to call their representatives. The demonstrators roared their approval.

"We own the dome!" they chanted, pointing at the Capitol.

Where were these people while the last President and his administration along with the Republican Party squandered away $559 billion dollar surplus 'they' were handed in 2000?  Where was their "fury" then?  Where was this "fury" just 6 years ago in 2003 when former President GW Bush and his party pushed through, what these same people consider a "socialist" program, called the Medicare Prescription Drug plan --that wasn't paid for?

Where was this "fury" when the former President pushed for a war in Iraq during a time we were busy trying to catch the guy that actually attacked us on 9/11?  Where was this "fury" while that same administration and it's Republican Party spent trillions of dollars on an unjustifiable war in Iraq?  Where was this "fury" when we found out there really weren't any WMD in Iraq, which meant we had "WASTED" trillions of dollars fighting a war we didn't need to fight and now we're having to spend trillions more to get the job done in Afghanistan that the previous administration screwed up?

Actually when you think about it, this just goes to show you what the Republican Party is all about.  When it comes to their pocketbooks and helping their fellow citizens -- they rally against such an idea on foot -- by the thousands.  When it comes to invading another nation for oil or power however, they sit on their rear ends, twiddle their thumbs and accuse others of being unpatriotic.