The stock market rally yesterday (gains above 10,000) is partly because, in Fox New's Neil Cavuto's opinion, of what former President George W Bush did with the bailouts to banks back in late 2008.  Watch this video.

It appears that the Republican Party and their propaganda tool, Fox News, are starting to worry a bit about the possibility of the economy and jobs improving before next year's election.

Behind closed doors they are most likely saying something like, "lets have this group complain about the lack of jobs and at the same time let's have this other group start pushing the idea that the economy and jobs came back --mostly because former President George W Bush's quick and decisive action back in 2008.  That way whatever happens we are covered for November 2010's election cycle.  If the economy improves, we can claim Bush's actions are why, if jobs continue to tank, we can claim - we told you so."

Once again they simply ignore the fact that if the Bush administration and the Republican leadership had acted sooner (instead of waiting till 2 months before leaving office), perhaps no bailout would have been required and millions wouldn't have lost their jobs and/or homes in the first place.

Arianna Huffington wants Vice President Joe Biden to resign his position so that he can be the true opposition to the war in Afghanistan.

Joe Biden met with CENTCOM chief Gen. David Petraeus this morning to talk about Afghanistan -- an issue that has pushed the vice president into the spotlight, landing him on the cover of the latest Newsweek.

I have an idea for how he can capitalize on all the attention, and do what generations to come will always be grateful for: resign....

Obama may be no drama, but Biden loves drama. And what could more dramatic than resigning the vice presidency on principle? And what principle could be more honorable than refusing to go along with a policy of unnecessarily risking American blood and treasure -- and America's national security?

Sorry Arianna, you left out one very important fact.  I believe that if VP Joe Biden were to resign that would mean Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would become Vice President.  Nope, nada, not going to happen!

Remember back in January of 2003 when former President George W. Bush gave taxpayer's money away to organizations to promote marriage?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has sent taxpayer money from its child support programs to religious and nonprofit organizations so they can promote marriage -- reflecting chief elements of President Bush's faith-based initiative.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced Thursday more than $2.2 million in grants to 12 states and a variety of religious, nonprofit and tribal organizations to advance the nation's child support enforcement system. Roughly $550,000 is being spent on programs that emphasize the importance of healthy marriage.

Among them are two organizations and a state agency that emphasize the importance of a healthy marriage to a child's well being.

The Marriage Coalition, in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, received $199,994 to test a curriculum for poor single parents that emphasizes the value of marriage and child support.

In Allentown, Pa., a group called Community Services for Children Inc. got $177,373 to work with local church groups in providing marriage education and other services to unwed couples.Re

Did you know that in 2004 alone, the Bush administration allocated $270 million dollars to "abstinence only" sex education groups?

Remember back In 2005, when Congress passed the Federal Appropriations Act that included more than $500 million annually for marriage promotion?  This money was found by cutting Medicare and Medicaid.

Are these the sort of things you want your tax dollars to promote during the worst economy since the Great Depression?  Some how I doubt most Americans even know about this money begin spent in this manner, so why are we wasting it?

I realize one or two allocations money doesn't calculate to be a lot of money; but when added together they just might be a few billion.

Perhaps President Obama and his team should take a look at these types of programs that the Bush administration included in their budgets and authorized during their eight years in office, then they should divert that money to all Americans with incomes more than the poverty line and less than $65,000 in the form of a rebate instead.  Those below poverty get government assistance already.  Those between poverty and $65,000 are the ones being hurt the most right now. 

Or even better, perhaps the money should be given to small businesses as a tax break or incentives to hire new workers.

(CNN) - As Democrats in Washington work to push health care reform through the Senate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty rolled out a series of new health care initiatives on Tuesday that he plans to introduce during next year's legislative session.

The Republican, who is contemplating a White House bid in 2012, made clear that the proposals are intended to be a "market driven" contrast to President Obama's health care plan currently being debated in Washington...

His new three-pronged plan to reform the state-run health care system is anchored by a proposal to let Minnesotans purchase health insurance plans across state lines. If enacted, Minnesota would become the first state to allow residents to buy health care from out of state. That plan, he said, would foster more private sector competition to help reduce costs.

The second proposal would establish a "tiered provider system" for the state-run programs MinnesotaCare and Minnesota Advantage that would make consumers pay more for clinics that are more costly and less efficient. The third part of the plan would require adults making at least 133 percent of the federal poverty level pay for some of the health care expenses under MinnesotaCare.

Well, well, well, it appears that even Republican leaders like possible 2012 Presidential candidate Gov. Tim Pawlenty, are wanting to mandate Americans to pay, at least partially, for their own health care.  Didn't somebody say that amounted to a tax increase?

I'm curious, what will be the penalty if these Minnesota Americans refuse to pay for their share of health care?  Will they be fined?  Will they be denied care?

As for the tiered system that forces citizens to pay more for their level of coverage -- that too is a tax increase isn't it?  It comes out of your pocket doesn't it?

As for allowing the citizens of Minnesota to cross State lines to buy insurance, that idea is also in the bill that is being worked on in Congress already, so nothing new there.

As for being "market driven", isn't that what we have already and isn't that is what is causing the costs to sky rocket already?

Would somebody mind telling me how this is saving Americans money on their health care costs?  I see nothing that is going to decrease the amount of money they currently pay out, in fact, quite the opposite effect.

I'm voting for this one!

A bill making the rounds on Capitol Hill marries two feel-good propositions -- tax cuts and pet ownership -- to generate a novel idea: A tax break of up to $3,500 per person for pet care expenses.

The measure is a legislative long shot. But it's been championed by a veteran Hollywood tough guy and by a conservative Michigan congressman, and has drawn the enthusiastic support of animal rights groups eager to promote pet ownership during economic down times.

"We think this is as much a health care bill as any," said Nancy Perry, vice president of government affairs at the Humane Society. "It's a human health issue to ensure that pets are provided with better care because of the role they play in our families."

Hey, if parents get tax cuts for children, even adopted ones, then why can't parents of animals (who take these animals off the street, saving tax payers money to care for them)?

I don't know about you but I spend close to $2400 just on medicines for my dog, not counting checkups, illnesses, vaccinations, etc...

Heck people, we offer tax cuts to buy a Humvee, I think my pet is more important than a car.

The Drudge Report (headlines are down now) used that title to describe what is normally done each time combat troops are sent to war...geez?!

President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.

The additional troops are primarily support forces, including engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police. Their deployment has received little mention by officials at the Pentagon and the White House, who have spoken more publicly about the combat troops who have been sent to Afghanistan.

The deployment of the support troops to Afghanistan brings the total increase approved by Obama to 34,000.

Give me a break.  Whenever combat troops are sent to harms way, the DoD's practice has been to deploy a total of about 9,500 per combat brigade.

Fox News does the same thing:

In an unannounced move, President Obama is dispatching up to 15,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan beyond the 21,000 he announced in March. 

The additional troops are primarily support forces -- such as engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police.

Talk about trying to MAKE news, these cable stations must be really bored.

At least Fox News admits that the Bush administration did the same thing:

Major deployments of support troops have not been publicized by the Pentagon and the White House in the past. When former president George W. Bush announced a U.S. troop increase in Iraq, he only mentioned 20,000 combat troops and not the accompanying 8,000 support troops.

Talk about your Right Wing propaganda!  They make this look like Obama is trying to once again GET AWAY with something tax payers need to know about.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain said any added military deployment in Afghanistan smaller than the 40,000 troops reportedly requested by the top U.S. commander there "would be an error of historic proportions."

Asked whether he thought the war in Afghanistan could be won with fewer troops than Gen. Stanley McChrystal has reportedly requested, McCain said, "I do not."

Would someone kindly tell me how this man even gets approached about the way a war is ran? 

This man for the most part was in the military during peace time (1958-1967), graduated 894th out of a class of 899, reportedly known for being careless and reckless, crashed his airplane at least twice, began his combat duty which started in 1967 which was also the same year through 1973 that he spent as a POW.

The man by any standards should have won the office of the Presidency; but because of his first decision as a presidential candidate for his Republican Party being such a big huge flop, he lost.  To this day he still says,

Sarah Palin will be "a formidable force" in the GOP and said he remains open to the possibility of Palin being his party's presidential nominee in 2012

Oh sure, the man may have been correct in his thinking that a surge in Iraq would calm things down -- but this is also the same man that thought Iraq would be easily controlled from the very beginning.

He's also the same man that helped to declare an easy victory in Afghanistan back in 2002 and 2003, remember?  He also said we can,

"muddle through in Afghanistan".  A year earlier, on CBS' Face the Nation, McCain said capturing Osama bin Laden wasn't "that important."

In late 2002 and early 2003, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a fixture on cable television, assuring Americans that an invasion of Iraq would be "easy." "I believe that the success will be fairly easy," McCain told CNN in September 2002. "We will win this conflict. We will win it easily," he told MSNBC the following January.

Possibly being partially right 'once' out of your life Senator McCain, doesn't suddenly make you 'all knowing'.

Too bad the press and media ignore all his WRONG DECISIONS.