Apparently Wal-Mart along with Costco offer caskets on their website now.  They are supposedly cheaper than most other places and they can be shipped within 48 hours.

They run between $999 - $1800 --  and are not sold in stores (can you imagine walking past the health care products directly into the Casket Room---Geez, that would sure make you feel good huh?).

While this may sound ridiculous, I'm all for these companies doing this.  There needs to be more competition between funeral homes and products required for a funeral.  Just imagine the money that those one or two funeral homes and the companies they do business with -- the profits they are making.  And, they are pretty much assured to stay in business for several life times.

In fact, I think Wal-Mart of Costco or some other place like that would make out pretty well if they were to create a separate division -- just for life or death products.   Imagine what that could include.  Not only medicines to keep you well, happy and healthy (medicine, insurance, assistant devices, weddings, baby items, homecoming dress/suits, etc..), but products for when your life ends(caskets, urns, clothing, flowers, insurance, cemetaries, etc..).

Yes I said cemeteries.  I meant however however, those special Cremation Niche that some cemeteries are now offering but in small amounts.  They are like a big concrete dressers, each drawer holds the cremation remains.

I would also love to see Wal-Mart offer up nursing home care.  Perhaps just the long term care policies.  Lock in those prices while you are young.

Imagine the possibilities folks...what a little competition will do.

I was listening to Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania and Governor Barbour of Mississippi on "Meet the Press" with David Gregory this morning while they discussed the Democratic and Republican Parties and the upcoming election in 2010.  They were debating who would best benefit in 2010 over the issue of health care, government spending and the unemployment rate.

David Gregory pointed out some people saying that the Democrats projected spending this year and the unemployment rate of 10.2% would, in one example, cause a "Tidal Wave" for the GOP in 2010.  I would argue that the "Tidal Wave" would instead, be a great "Tsunami" for the Democratic Party.

We recently saw a "Tidal Wave" for the Democratic Party in the 2008 election.  Not only did Republicans lose the White House, they lost a great deal of seats in the House and in the Senate during that election. 

The Republican base wasn't enough to get them over the hurdles they faced back then.  Their refusal to admit to any failures during the Bush/Cheney years, both in the White House and with Congressional actions caused the voters to swarm over to the Democratic Party.  Their failure to admit that they blew it when it came to the economy - allowing our nation to come within a hair's breathe away from another Great Depression hurt them.  Their failure to admit that we indeed have not won the war in Afghanistan and that the war in Iraq was in no way 'over' as they claimed the "surge" caused, also hurt them.

I also happen to think that Americans realized that tax rebates and tax cuts aren't the only solution to making our nation thrive.  After all, we were all given at least 5 different tax rebates or cuts over the past 8 years during the Bush administration yet instead of having a booming economy we ended up in the biggest recession since the 30s and 40s.

Commentators on "Meet the Press" also discussed whether President Obama was taking on too much and not spending enough time on the economy and whether that would hurt the Democrats in 2010.

As one of the commentators pointed out, Obama came into office planning on stopping the Iraq war, getting health care for all and getting control of our energy sources.  Those were his goals and what he ran on in 2008.  He inherited those other things like the "Great Recession", a corrupt Wall Street that was failing, businesses going belly up, car dealers threatening to die and two wars that we were falsely led to believe we were winning, and a world that lost their respect and admiration for the U.S.

Americans know these facts, they aren't blind.  Americans also know that jobs are scarce because of all the above.  Now the question becomes, what will pull employment back to at least where it was in the early 90's? 

Keep in mind, the Bush/Cheney administration and Republican Party, after 8 years in office and 5 tax cuts, still left behind a 7.2% unemployment figure as of January 1, 2009 before leaving office.   These facts will and should be repeated during the 2010 election cycle.  It was the Bush/Cheney administration and not the Obama administration that originally designed the 750 Billion dollar bailout for large insurance companies like AIG and the car industry, will and should be repeated during the 2010 election cycle.  The GOP is trying their level best to change that history in the minds of Americans but they won't succeed.

Let's take a look at what's happened since January 20th of this year.  The Democratic Party came into power and immediately wrote the Recovery and Reinvestment package that was passed and signed into law within 30 days in office on February 17, 2009.  This bill included a historical tax cut for Americans.  Only three republicans voted for this relief (stimulus) package, and those same three Republicans helped to gut what was initially asked for by the Democrats. 

President Obama immediately ordered an additional 33,000 troops be sent to Afghanistan to help try and stabilize that war.  This decision was made within a couple of months of taking office.  The Bush/Cheney administration had been asked by the Generals on the ground for more troops a full year before this yet date --they still hadn't made up their minds when they left office in January of 2009.

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.

Today the President and his administration are trying to produce a new strategy, one that will work in Afghanistan instead of one we were lied to about.

The health care reform bills that the Democrats have been trying to put together is finally coming around, the House passed their final version of their bill last night that would not only cover millions of additional Americans, it is paid for and would cut the deficit by billions over  10 years.  They did this with only one vote from a Republican.  Now the Senate must do the same and then both bills will be merged into one final bill.

CBO says the GOP provisions would cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years, less than the Democratic bill, which cuts the deficit $104 billion over the same time frame.  That's largely because the Democrats raise taxes and cut Medicare benefits while the GOP doesn't (although the GOP plan does include some small revenue growth of about $27 billion over ten years.)

   The CBO also says the Republican plan would leave 52 million people uninsured in 2019, more than the 46 million uninsured today (the percentage of Americans without insurance, about 17 percent, would remain basically unchanged, CBO says.)

   CBO earlier said the Democrats' bill would leave about 18 million uninsured.

My point is this, millions of potential voters will finally get the health care they need for their families.

The economy grew 3.5% the last quarter, instead of being in the negative as it was before.  Unemployment may still be high, but the numbers each month keeps dropping.  Only a third of the economic stimulus package has been used which means thousands of future jobs will become available during the spring and summer of 2010.

 

The Republican Party was given a warning with a "Tidal Wave" during the November 2008 election.  In some ways you could call this the 'drawback' step (first step of a Tsunami - the water along the shoreline recedes dramatically, exposing normally submerged areas - unaware of the danger sometimes people remain) it was a huge warning of sorts. 

By becoming the Party of 'No' since January 20, 2009; the Republican Party has put themselves in the position of being the Party that was 'wiped out' by a Tsunami in November of 2010.

When voters see that they will soon have health care coverage and won't lose what they have.  When they see that the economy is growing instead of melting and that jobs are finally coming around and the risk of losing their own is less.  When they see our roads, bridges, electric grids and infrastructure have all been improved since the Democratic Party took control - I predict there will be the greatest political Tsunami in history.  This "Tsunami wave" will wipe out what is left of, what is today known as, the Republican Party.

 

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm getting sick and tired of the media constantly reporting that members of Congress have or don't have the votes to pass the health care reform bill (their version - House or Senate).

I wish they'd just stop talking about it and maybe one day soon we'll know the truth -- either it died or it lived.

Meanwhile -- SHUT UP WHY DON'T YA -- go find some other news to talk about.

Give us a BREAK!

President Obama, offer everybody that works a one time tax deduction for their 2009 tax year.  That deduction should amount to a percentage.  The percentage should be the difference between what the unemployment rate was in January 2009 (7.2% unemployment figure - It was 6.7% in November 2008) and what it is at the end of this year (currently 10.2%). 

That's a difference of 3%.  Allow all workers to take away an additional 3% of their total income before calculating their taxes for 2009.

Putting money back into the hands of taxpayers....isn't that what most people want?  Wouldn't this also get a few people off the back of Democrats -- for awhile anyway?

Ok you mathematicians, how much would that end up costing our budget?  I'm just curious....I have no idea.  But it sounds like a good idea.

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Barack Obama has done it again. The president's starpower has made the United States the place most people want to visit and do business with, according to an annual survey that ranks nations like retail brands.

The Country Brand Index, compiled by brand consultancy FutureBrand, found the United States had unseated Australia, which held the top spot for the past three years. Australia came in third this year with Canada rising to second place.

New Zealand and France rounded up the top five country brands in this year's index that included 102 countries.

"The Obama effect has seen the United States earn the coveted top spot for the first time in the fifth annual index," FutureBrand, which is part of Interpublic Group of Companies, said in a statement...

Where's the big news about this story?  On the back pages of websites and newspapers. 

There's only one question to ask.  Which makes the U.S. safer, a world that hates her or a world that envy's or loves her?

Pending House Sales up 6.1%

Pending home sale activity is now 21.2% higher than it was a year ago, NAR said, making it the largest annual increase in pending home sales on record...

FORD makes $1 Billion Profit

DEARBORN, Mich. - Ford, the only Detroit automaker to dodge direct government aid and bankruptcy court, surprised investors with net income of nearly $1 billion in the third quarter and forecast a "solidly profitable" 2011...

Manufacturing Grows for Third Month

NEW YORK - A private measure of U.S. manufacturing activity grew in October at the fastest pace in more than three years, helped by government spending and higher demand from overseas. The better-than-expected reading is a positive signal for the fledgling economic recovery....

*********************************************************************************

Well folks, sure looks like things are improving each and every month.  Between now and next summer I am predicting jobs will be back as well.

This news must be starting to worry Republicans, as they were praying for the economy to go under and jobs to be lost --- at least till November 2010's election is over.

Fox News:

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is making a last-minute campaign appearance for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine's re-election bid.

Obama's scheduled to appear Sunday at a pair of rallies for the only incumbent governor seeking re-election. Just one of two governors' offices on the ballot for Tuesday's elections, the White House is aware Democratic losses would be spun as a referendum on Obama.

The results could also foreshadow next year's elections, when 37 governorships come up for grabs...

Meanwhile, another new poll finds Corzine and Republican challenger Chris Christie running nearly even in the race.

Excuse me?  "The WHITE HOUSE is aware Democratic losses would be spun as a referendum on Obama."

That should read instead as...."The FOX NEWS CHANNEL is aware Democratic losses COULD be spun......"

Fox would love nothing better for the Democrats running for Governor this Tuesday to lose, even if by small margins.  They'd have another 6 months at least, to talk/report/gossip about it.  "It's a sign the country isn't pleased with Obama", they'd say.

They of course would be ignoring the fact that the country itself is split in half on what is best for our economy, health and environment.

They would also be ignoring the fact that history shows us that all politics is local when it comes to the State elections. 

How many times have you voted for a representative, senator or governor simply because of who the President of United States was?  If you did, you were wrong in doing so.  Your reasoning should have been because that 'person' was best for the job, not just an extension of a Party.

They'd also be ignoring the polls that show that the country is still supportive of President Obama (55% for, 40% against), and very unhappy with the actions of the Republican leadership in Congress (48% for Dems, 36% for Reps).

Lower the cost of health care and create jobs at the same time.  The new health care reform bill or a new stimulus plan should allow for the building of prompt care centers across America in small towns and cities.

Larger cities in the country provide these types of clinics, saving the ER's in hospitals for major emergencies instead of those that just can't wait till Monday or the next day.

This would not only provide cheaper service for emergencies, like broken bones, sinus infections, flu, stomach aches, cuts or bruises, etc..., it would create thousands of jobs.

Jobs for realtors, lawyers, lumber companies, electric companies, medical equipment companies,  plumbing equipment companies, surveyors, architects, construction workers, plumbers, electricians, concrete layers. 

Property must be negotiated for, surveyed and razed.  Buildings must be designed and accountants must tally up the costs of building supplies, etc...  Equipment and supplies must be purchased and ordered.  Builders may need places to live while building the centers.  The construction workers, plumbers, electricians and concrete layers are hired to meet the required standards for such a clinic and then to build them.

Each center will require medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, office equipment and furniture.  The stores that provide these items may need to hire additional workers to provide this service.

Each clinic will require office personnel, office managers, nurses and doctors to run it and provide much needed service.

Accountants, bookkeepers and computer professionals will be needed to keep tabs of the budget and payrolls of these clinics.

In short folks, millions of sick people could not only get cheaper health care for those minor emergencies, they could get it a little faster.  Millions of major emergency patients could get a little faster service as well because the ER's in hospitals would be responsible for only those cases.  Thousands of short term jobs would be created to build the clinics and thousands of long term jobs would be created to run those same clinics.

I think this idea could be considered outside the whelm of Health Care Reform bill, and instead written up as a second stimulus plan.

One of the bloggers here at TPM asked a very good question on one of my posts, "why can't Afghanistan be used to launch another attack against the USA?"

Good question, why can't it?  For that matter why can't any nation or even a State be used to launch another attack against the United States of America?

Condi Rice(R) recently said the following:

"If you want another terrorist attack in the US, abandon Afghanistan," she said in an interview with Fortune magazine on Tuesday.

U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak(D) said the following:

We can't keep America safe if we let al-Qaida return

President Hamid Karzai warned

The world must remain engaged in Afghanistan until the country manages to stand on its own feet or ''terrorists'' will strike again,

American Legion National Commander Clarence E. Hill said:

"According to The Washington Post, General Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO Commander, is warning us that without more forces within the next year, the mission in Afghanistan 'will likely result in failure.' Considering that Afghanistan was the breeding ground for the 9/11 attacks, we cannot allow that to happen,"

What makes Afghanistan so unique?  Why are these people claiming that if we get attacked again the attackers will most likely come from Afghanistan, especially if we walk away from that war.  If we walk away, the terrorists will unite once again and make plans to attack the U.S..

Why couldn't the same possibility hold true with respects to Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, Saudi Arabia or for that matter, the United States of America itself?

Didn't we just hear about the U.S. Justice Department arresting two men in the city of Chicago for plotting a terrorist attack against a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Didn't we also just hear about an American convert to Islam that charged with a plot to blow up the court building in Springfield in Illinois state and trigger mass murder.
And didn't we just read about a 19-year-old Jordanian man living in Texas that was arrested  on charges he intended to bomb a downtown Dallas skyscraper.
What about the physicist that recently accused of providing a list of strategic terrorist targets to North African Islamic radicals.

There's also the Sudbury man who was planning to obtain automatic weapons and use these to attack shopping malls.

And there was the three suspects that were arrested in the United States on charges of plotting to set off explosive devices in public places in several U.S. states, the CNN reported.
Couldn't terrorists also be right here in the U.S. plotting to kill others outside the U.S.?  Didn't we just hear about Federal agents arresting seven men in North Carolina for plotting to wage "violent jihad" outside the United States.

This is just a small sampling that were arrested this year in these United States of America. 

Again I say, what makes Afghanistan or Iraq so unique when it comes to plotting the death of thousands?

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is giving a jolt to the futuristic "smart" electric grid, hoping to more quickly bring America's power transmission system into the digital age.

President Barack Obama, during a visit to a solar energy facility in Arcadia, Florida, is announcing Tuesday that he is making available $3.4 billion in government support for 100 projects aimed at modernizing the power grid. The projects include installing "smart" electric meters in homes, automating utility substations, and installing thousands of new digital transformers and grid sensors...

The $3.4 billion in grants from the government's economic stimulus program will be matched by $4.7 billion in private investments, the officials said. The smallest grant will be $400,000 and the largest $200 million...

The push to essentially bring modern computer and communications technology to the electric grid has been under way for some time but has gained momentum with the prospect of billions of dollars in federal support.

Matt Rogers, the Energy Department official involved in the program, said the 100 projects were selected from 400 proposed...

"This will save or create tens of thousands of jobs,"

Not only is this smart and good for the economy, it's the right thing to do for our future generations.  When it was mentioned that our electric grids would be upgraded with the Recovery and Reinvestment act (stimulus) money, I knew it would give our economy a boost as well as much needed improvements with our system.

Eugene Robinson of Washington Post

By turning from Afghanistan prematurely to launch an elective, unnecessary and ill-advised invasion of Iraq, Bush and Cheney managed to transform one war we were winning into two that we were in danger of losing....

But the decisions on Afghanistan truly are either-or. Obama can decide to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy or a counterterrorism strategy. He can do one or the other -- not both. If he chooses counterinsurgency, he has to send enough troops to make that strategy work. If he doesn't want to send all those troops, he needs to pursue counterterrorism or do something else...

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan who has devised the counterinsurgency strategy, is asking for 40,000 or more additional troops. Obama is right to examine the general's calculations, but it would make no sense to try a middle path and approve, say, a troop increase of 20,000. That would just put more Americans in harm's way without giving McChrystal the resources he says he needs. This game's been going on for eight years. It's time to raise or fold...

We invaded Afghanistan to ensure that the country could never again be used to launch attacks against the United States. That mission is accomplished, and our only goal should be making sure it stays accomplished -- whether the place is run by Hamid Karzai or the Taliban. The counterinsurgency campaign that Obama is contemplating looks like a step onto the slipperiest slope imaginable. It doesn't matter whether the step is tentative or bold.

Sometimes a "war president" has to decide to start bringing the troops home. That's what Obama must do.

I'm sorry Eugene but I have to disagree.  This is not the time to be rushing the troops out of Afghanistan.  You are correct, we've spent 8 years there, you are wrong however in thinking we've given it our 'all' and that Afghanistan will never again be used to launch attacks against us. 

As you pointed out, the war we 'thought' we were winning was suddenly dropped or forgotten by President Bush and Vice President Cheney for a war they preferred to be fighting --in Iraq.

We haven't given half the attention we gave Iraq to Afghanistan, not in troop strength nor politically.  For the past 6 years our troops have been in limbo in Afghanistan, protecting a few major cities like Kabul.  This is not fighting a war, it's policing a city.  It's kind of like having police in downtown Chicago and not training more police officers to help control the violence across the rest of Chicago

I'm guessing because I don't know the details of what's happening over there (we hear very little from you in the media about the actual war - except for the political side of it); but I think perhaps there needs to be enough troops sent over to help protect the other troops, give them reinforcements, to cover their backs - and possibly spread the security around the nation. 

Think about Chicago during the mob days in the 40's and 50's.  If the cops had just gone downtown and ignored the suburbs (which they did in the beginning), they would have never gotten control of Chicago.  Instead, the cops were sent across the city, showing up on the streets of small neighborhoods, giving at least the sense of 'control' - giving those that lived there a feeling of security and in some cases making them feel a little braver.  Because of that feeling, they began squealing on the bad guys to those same cops on the streets.

There needs to be a surge alright Eugene; but not in combat troops, in the training of Afghans to fight for their own country.

Until we have given Afghanistan our 'all', as was done in Iraq, we should not leave.

As for the U.S. political side of the issue;  Can't you just hear the Republican Party's accusations toward the Democratic Party and President Barack Obama if he were to come out tomorrow and say, "Enough is enough, we're leaving Afghanistan"?  

"Be prepared to be attacked again because Democrats are weak on defense.  We warned you", they would say.  Ignoring of course that odds are, we'll be attacked whether we stay or not.

No sir, it's not time yet.  President Obama and his administration must prove they've given Afghanistan their 'all'; then and only then should he announce our withdrawal of troops from there.

TEHRAN, Iran - A team of U.N. inspectors prepared Sunday for their first look inside a formerly secret -- though still unfinished -- uranium enrichment facility that has raised Western suspicions about the extent of Iran's nuclear program.

The inspection tour will provide the world's first independent details of the heavily protected site, carved into a mountainside near the holy city of Qom south of Tehran. It also coincides with the countdown to Iran's expected decision on whether to accept a U.N.-brokered plan to process its nuclear fuel abroad...

First independent details of site?  Wow, I wonder if this would have happened under the Bush/Cheney administration?  PROBABLY NOT, instead, we would have bombed it and killed innocent citizens while doing so. 

Geez, and the media wants to see the CHANGE President Obama has promised?  It's right under their noses -- this is one great example of CHANGE!

Oct. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The economy in the U.S. probably grew in the third quarter at the fastest pace in two years as government stimulus helped bring an end to the worst recession since the 1930s, economists said before reports this week.

The world's largest economy grew at a 3.2 percent pace from July through September after shrinking the previous four quarters, according to the median estimate of 65 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. Other reports may show sales of new homes and orders for long-lasting goods increased.

The fastest pace in TWO YEARS?  Geeh, does that mean that President Obama and the Democrats have done better with the economy in his first 9 months in office then President George W. Bush did in his last year and a quarter?

Yup!  Why, you ask?  The Recovery and Reinvestment (Stimulus) bill that Obama and the Democratic Party passed within in a month of being in total control -- that's why.

Yet we continue to hear the Republican Party and most in the media bickering over how 'slow' the economy is improving after we came very close to having another Great Depression.  Geez, will they ever see the light?  I doubt it.

According to today's TPM reporting, it appears as though Senator Reid wants to 'hurt' the Insurance industry by stopping the Anti-Trust exemption they currently survive on for years:

Reid is adamant that the insurance industry should lose a decades-old anti-trust exemption that allows companies to divvy up markets and agree not to compete against one another.

According to the report Reid said that he:

Along with Senate health care leaders, and White House officials will discuss the public option in yet another closed door meeting tonight.

Could the threat of losing the ability to divvy up markets be enough to convince the insurance industry to back some sort of a Public Option?

Could it actually work?  You tell me.

Democratic aides said that a "handful" of senators who are skeptical of a public plan likely could be persuaded if not to support it then at least to oppose a Republican filibuster, if the administration were to apply a bit more pressure -- or even guidance.

"There is a clear sense that it would be helpful," said one senior Democratic aide. "Throughout this entire debate the White House line has been 'We will weigh in when it is necessary'.... Well now we need 60 votes. So if it's not necessary now, then when will it be?"

"I think folks in general in Congress were looking to the president to clearly define his feeling on the issue," another aide said. "And I don't think he has done that on the public option from the get-go... With a lot of senators nervous because of elections or other political dynamics, it would be helpful for the president to send a strong signal that this is what he wants in the final bill."

Oh give us a break please.... This is the Democratic Party's way of getting away from any blame if a public option ends up not being a part of the final Health Care Reform package.

I agree with Press Secretary Gibbs on this one, ""I think the folks on Capitol Hill, based on the speech the president gave on Capitol Hill, know where he stands,"

Just last September 7th during a visit to Cincinnati they president said,

"I continue to believe that a public option within the basket of insurance choices would help improve quality and bring down costs."

So what else is he suppose to say, "add it or I won't sign the bill"?  Oh that would solve everything wouldn't it.  Not only would it not give Democrats anymore leverage it would just end up putting all the blame on Obama if the bill does not pass.

Nope, if Obama came out and demanded a public option, it would instead most likely kill whatever they've accomplished so far.

I'm pretty darn sure there will be some sort of trigger or way of going back into the package that is passed this year and changing the rules at a later date, even if that doesn't happen during Obama's term in office.

So, what he's been saying is plenty of ammo for the Democrats to get those 'votes' to stop a filibuster if they truly want to stop it.  If they fail to do so, it won't be Obama's fault, it will prove once again that the Democratic Party as a whole, can't seem to work as a team on anything of any real substance.