Dean is first, please.  Thank you.

Where's the "Red House", Jimi ?

Florida is not doing well in accepting that the state Board of Education wants to teach evolution. There are many noses out of joint that such a thing would be done.

Here's a picture of the county school board on which a majority oppose teaching it, and one doesn't know what to think.  The other two believe in creationism, but accept state ruling.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1655

David wrote "Where's the 'Red House', Jimi ?"

Over yonder.

My grandparents came to America as undocumented workers. They got jobs as caretakers on an estate in back country Greenwich, Ct. They were lucky - most Irish who entered America illegally came through Boston. Like other immigrants before them, they were degraded, their accents were made fun of, they were the butt of jokes for those immigrants who preceded them.

A family war centered around Greenwich, Ct. - between the "old money" Bushes - who were British Protestants - and the "new money" Kennedys - who were Irish Catholics. That war is still being fought today.

Returning to my Grandparents - no immigrant should go through what most every immigrant goes through. Our current group of "illegals" are hard-working good people - and they deserve better. 

Headed home for post-Thanksgiving yummy leftovers with Diane. Arrividerci, mes amis.

sandy, any relation to joe veillette from up-state new york?

I have to admit that, even for me, the news that Sen. Edwards' reverse course on the Iraq war authorization was more precipitous than Sen. Kerry's seemed alarming.  Here's part of Kate Zernike's NYT article from Wednesday:

"Both [Kerry and Edwards] had voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to go to war with Iraq; Mr. Edwards had sponsored it with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. In 2004, they found themselves in an impossible position: antiwar Democrats were pushing Mr. Kerry to say he would pull out troops, while Republicans were calling him a flip-flopper whenever he tried to attack Mr. Bush on the war.

"Mr. Kerry had increasing doubts about the war. But Mr. Edwards argued that they should not renounce their votes — they had to show conviction and consistency.

"Mr. Kerry yielded to his running mate after Mr. Bush issued a challenge in early August: would Mr. Kerry still vote the same way, knowing now that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction? Mr. Kerry told reporters he would have voted the same, but done everything else about the war differently.

"The Republicans delighted in another flip-flop. Six weeks later, Mr. Kerry gave a speech at New York University declaring that he would not have voted for the war, calling it a 'profound diversion' from the real threat, Osama bin Laden. Mr. Edwards had argued against the speech in a conference call into the early morning hours."

Tom:

Sitka answered your "inscrutable" comment quite effectively:

The DLC only runs FROM issues.

 

Good example is Hillary's cackle, then "memory lapse" over the issue of NAFTA.

 She, Obama, and, to a lesser extent, Edwards, are punting on the issues voters really care about:

• Health Care
• Iraq
• Iran
• Deficits
• Fair taxation

For unequivocal positions on these issues, dare I say the name?

Dennis Kucinich

please recommend this post.

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23085...

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Political repercussions
President Johnson speaks to a television camera at the signing of the Civil Rights Act.
President Johnson speaks to a television camera at the signing of the Civil Rights Act.

The bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographics of both political parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would mean losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. As Vice President Johnson pushed the Kennedy administration to introduce civil rights legislation, telling Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."[7] As president, Johnson was warned by Senator Russell that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election." [8] The South indeed started to vote increasingly Republican after 1964. However, political scientists Richard Johnston and Byron Schafer have argued that this development was based more on economics than on race. [9]

Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Republican senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Most Democrats from the Southern states opposed the bill, including Senators Albert Gore Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert Byrd (D-WV). Goldwater went on to secure his party's nomination for the presidency, and in the ensuing election, Goldwater won only Arizona and five of the Deep South states, two of which (Alabama and Mississippi) had not voted Republican since the disputed presidential election of 1876.

Wikipedia. See also, Civil Rights Act of 1968

Howdy folks.

Facts trump anecdote.....thanks puddle. 

John wrote "[Clinton], Obama, and, to a lesser extent, Edwards, are punting on the issues voters really care about."

Like her spouse, Sen. Clinton belongs to the DLC.  Your comment makes relative sense applied to her, but neither Obama nor Edwards are backed by the DLC, which made your comment difficult to understand, notwithstanding Sitka's unhelpful assistance.

I now take it by "flee[ing] real issues," "run[ning] from issues, and "punting on the issues," you mean to say that they haven't espoused positions that reflect yours.  Fair enough, but those are different propositions.

A GENERALIZED MELTDOWN OF GLOBAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney11242007.html

Reality has finally caught up to the stock market. The American consumer is underwater, the banks are buried in dept, and the housing market is in terminal distress. The Dow is now below its 200-Day Moving Average -- the first big "sell" signal. Anything below 12,500 could trigger program-trading and crash the market. The increased volatility suggests that we are watching a "real time" meltdown.

The credit storm that began in the United States with subprime mortgages has spread to markets across the globe. In fact, the train has already crashed. What we're seeing now is the boxcars piling up on top of each other.

The dollar took another pasting on Wednesday, sliding to $1.49 on the euro; another new record. Gold shot up to $814 per ounce. Oil continues to flirt with the $100 per barrel mark, and the yen rose to 107 per dollar forcing a sell-off of hedge fund assets levered through the carry trade.

If you want to blame someone; blame Alan Greenspan. He's the one who created this mess. According to the economist Mike Shedlock:

"The Fed caused the credit crunch by slashing interest rates to 1 per cent to bail out its banking buddies in the wake of a dotcom bubble collapse. All the Fed did was create a bigger bubble. This bubble is so big in fact that it cannot even be bailed out. It's the end of the line for a serially bubble blowing Fed.

"So not only was this the biggest credit bubble in history, this was also the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the already enormously wealthy. That is the real travesty of justice regardless of whether or not the price tag is $1 trillion, $2 trillion, or $10 trillion." (Mike Shedlock, "Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis")

The problem has gotten so serious that even Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, is putting up red flags.

No one has predicted the downward-spiral in the market more accurately than Nouriel Roubini. Roubini is a Professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University.

"It is increasingly clear by now that a severe U.S. recession is inevitable in next few months...I now see the risk of a severe and worsening liquidity and credit crunch leading to a generalized meltdown of the financial system of a severity and magnitude like we have never observed before. In this extreme scenario whose likelihood is increasing we could see a generalized run on some banks; and runs on a couple of weaker (non-bank) broker dealers that may go bankrupt with severe and systemic ripple effects on a mass of highly leveraged derivative instruments that will lead to a seizure of the derivatives markets... massive losses on money market funds with a run on both those sponsored by banks and those not sponsored by banks; ..ever growing defaults and losses ($500 billion plus) in subprime, near prime and prime mortgages with severe knock-on effect on the RMBS and CDOs market; massive losses in consumer credit (auto loans, credit cards); severe problems and losses in commercial real estate...; the drying up of liquidity and credit in a variety of asset backed securities putting the entire model of securitization at risk; runs on hedge funds and other financial institutions that do not have access to the Fed's lender of last resort support; a sharp increase in corporate defaults and credit spreads; and a massive process of re-intermediation into the banking system of activities that were until now altogether securitized." (Nouriel Roubini's Global EconoMonitor).

"A generalized meltdown of the financial system".

Looks like Chicken Little might have gotten it right this time; "The sky IS falling."

I now take it by "flee[ing] real issues," "run[ning] from issues, and "punting on the issues," you mean to say that they haven't espoused positions that reflect yours.  Fair enough, but those are different propositions.

 

Tom, they all substitute happy talk for unambiguous stands. They waffle and spin to baffle the voters and at the same time, satisfy their corporate funders.

Sandy identified the problem with the corporate Dems-- Corruption.

" No fancy words, plain english, Big corporations run our government."

John wrote "Tom, they all substitute happy talk for unambiguous stands. They waffle and spin to baffle the voters and at the same time, satisfy their corporate funders."

I happen to disagree.  Can you cite a specific example that illustrates this?  I'm at a loss to understand how you can believe that Obama, for example, does not have definite policy positions on health care, Iraq, Iran, and taxation.  He's issued position papers, made policy speeches with express references, or both on each of these.

November 24, 2007
A “current resident” responds–
Filed under: another perspective —

Shortly after Barack Obama first appeared in New Hampshire (at the state Democratic party’s victory celebration following the 2006 election that sent Carol Shea Porter and Paul Hodes to Congress), my wife and I each received a postcard from Senator Obama thanking us for joining him at that event. I wrote a polite letter to the senator explaining that we had not joined him–and that he had joined us and others. I also took the time to suggest that on the basis of the platitudes and exaggerations in the speech he gave at that event, he should change the title of his campaign biography from “The Audacity of Hope” to “The Audacity of Hype”.


Although I never received a reply from Senator Obama, my wife and I continued to receive separate but identical
mass-mailings from his campaign. That seems to have ended, perhaps because we have not contributed.

Or perhaps the separate mailings have ended because the Obama campaign has changed its address list.

Yesterday, we received in the mail a single glossy brochure with twenty-four pages. The title of this brochure seems to be “A Story of Hope” (those words appear at the bottom of each odd-numbered page), but the key word, used again and again, seems to be “change”, as in “Change we can believe in”, the phrase that appears over his name and logo on the cover.

Senator Obama certainly seems to believe in change, as evidenced by the mailing address on the brochure he sent us: “The Smith Family or Current Resident”. Although my wife and I have lived on the same rural road in Durham for forty-two years, and at the same location on that road since 1970, Senator Obama seems to expect us to change our address, to move on. Perhaps he expects that because he moved around quite a bit before settling down in Illinois. Nothing wrong with that. So did my wife and I before we met, married, and settled in Durham.

Let me end this screed by focusing on one symbol of change: the change that swept over the country a generation ago when some politically-correct speakers and writers started using “they” in place of “he or she” or “his and her”. On the cover of his brochure, Senator Obama is pictured speaking into a microphone while seeming to point his thumb up toward the phrase above his head: “You can tell a lot about a person by the life they have lived . . . and the choices they have made.”

If Senator Obama is speaking of himself (and why else would he be jerking his thumb toward that phrase?), then he has made a poor choice: he has chosen to use the plural pronoun “they” in reference to the singular noun (”a person”). In other words, he has chosen to capitulate to the pusillanimous political correctness of a genderless plural pronoun when he could have claimed “you can tell a lot about people by the lives they have lived and the choices they have made” or “you can tell a lot about me by the life I have lived and the choices I have made.”

I can tell a lot about Senator Obama by the choices he has made in this brochure–or allowed his public relations hacks and flacks to make in his name. If he really wants to change his address from Capitol Hill to the White House, he needs to change. And he needs to stop addressing potential supporters as “or Current Resident”.

–a current resident (also known as the curmudgeon, J.R. Smith)

What's weirder yet is you write that of the three, Edwards "is punting on the issues voters really care about" "to a lesser extent."  I had just taken the time above to point out how, as reported in Ms. Zernike's New York Times article, Edwards was more stalwart on the Iraq war authorization than Kerry, who got accused of wavering because he wouldn't second guess his vote then with the knowledege he acquired later. 

Edwards told Kerry to stand strong on his vote.  One year later, Edwards wrote that he was wrong in the Washington Post.  I mean, come on.

Change we can believe in, P.10

 

"That's what I'm opposed to.  A dumb war.  A rash war.  A war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

--Barack Obama

Chicago, October 2002,

four months prior to the invasion of Iraq

 

But, you see, he's got it wrong.  The invasion was planned for ten years and the reason was simple--a desire for real estate on which to located air assets and missiles.  I don't know what he means by "principle" but the belief that it's the job of the U.S. to pacify southwest Asia seems pretty principled.  Never mind that the dichotomy, principle/politics doesn't make sense.

Then the page continues:

"Obama will immediately begin bringing all of our combat troops out of Iraq and will remove all combat troops within 16 months."

Note that combat is repeated. 

p.13

"MORAL LEADERSHIP.

RESPECT FOR AMERICA.

And on trips to Africa and the Middle East, he has brought a new face of American leadership to the world.

He challenged the leaders of South Africa over the issue of HIV/AIDS.

He took on government corruption in Kenya.

He won the hearts of people across the Continent."

 

Now, if that isn't blather, I don't know what is! 

Now, if that isn't blather, I don't know what is! 

The question I always have about Obama is does he want to be president or a messiah?

Monica wrote: "Now, if that isn't blather, I don't know what is!"

Let me help.  Here's a portion of the transcript from Meet the Press on 10/28/2007: 

(Videotape)

SEN. DODD:  There’s no question that Iraq poses biological and chemical weapons, that’s not in doubt, and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.  That’s not in debate.  I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  What do you think when you watch those words?

SEN. DODD:  Well, I read the whole speech, and I did last evening in preparation for coming here this morning.  And I also cautioned there that we explore, let the, let the inspectors stay on the job here.  And many of us, most of us believed, even Carl Levin for instance, who took a very different view than I did, acknowledged the fact that the weapons of mass destruction were there and the possibility of accumulating.  We were all drawn into that. I regret that vote, obviously.  Like to have it back.  You can’t.  I’ve said as much.  It was a mistake, in my view, here.  But I also at that time and also in March of ‘03, strongly cautioned the administration not to aggressively pursue the military option without seeing whether or not we could actually prove that the weapons of mass destruction existed there.

Colin Powell said it well before the Senate Foreign Relations committee.  He said if this is about regime change, we should not go in.  If it’s about dealing with weapons of mass destruction, that’s a cause for war.  I agreed with him then.  I agreed with him then.  I think that was the appropriate way to approach the issue.  And certainly we’ve learned painfully that that was not the issue.  The weapons of mass destruction did not exist.

MR. RUSSERT:  But, Senator, your support for the war continued.  Here you are in July of 2005, almost two years after you voted for the authorization. Here’s Chris Dodd on MEET THE PRESS.

(Videotape)

SEN. DODD:  We need to complete this job, which I support, by the way.  We’ve got a lot of things we need to do.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  And then in February of ‘06, when asked specifically about a deadline for withdrawal of troops, here’s Chris Dodd:  “‘Senator Dodd, do you agree that setting a deadline would tip off the enemy so to speak?’ Dodd: ‘Yeah, I’m opposed to deadlines.’”

SEN. DODD:  Well, let me—just first of all, it was in—in September of ‘04, I said it was a mistake that we went in.  Hartford Courant will report that, September 28th, 2004.  What I talked about on the program here was we’re there.  We got in mistakenly.  How do we complete this in a successful way? And certainly the idea—I initially did not like the idea of having deadlines. But, Tim, I’ve come to the conclusion, as many others have as well—and people on the ground conclude this as well—this was not going well at all here. This was—the issue that was raised by John Warner to General Petraeus before the Senate Armed Services Committee a few weeks ago, is America safer?  That’s the issue the American president has to answer.  Are we keeping our country safe and secure?  And I believe that our continued military presence in Iraq does not keep us safe and secure.  I think we’re far more vulnerable, I think we’re far more isolated today than in any time in recent history, and that we need to change direction on this policy.

Listening to Oscar Shumsky playing
 
J.S. Bach
The complete
Sonatas and
Partitas for
Solo Violin

while reading the blog.

It's heavenly~

21.  Changing one's mind in response to changes on the ground is not the same as saying "He took on government corruption in Kenya."

What does that even mean?  He's not a prosecutor in Kenya.

 21.
Let me help.

Pretty good.

 

What I like about BFA is that many different opinions are represented and discussed and argued.

The hardest thing in life is to make decisions.

Dictatorships succeed because a majority of people feel incompetent to make decisions or are simply just too lazy . 

We need to listen to all voices that are out there,  not suppress them.

14.  Facts trump antedote

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

 We are growing more than 3% in each quater so far and suddenly, with an election approaching there is a "recession" around every corner.  Remeber in 2004 when suddenly every week the media reported the weekly job creation statistics.  Have you seen them reported even once since.  The sky is not falling, unless that illusion could be helpfull.  Watch how these predictions increase thoughout 2008 aas the election draws near.  It is interesting theater, but totally detatched from reality. Pick any econ stat you want and we are historically in pretty good shape: Unemployment, GDP, Interest Rates,, consumer spending, P/E ratioson the NYSE, job creation. 

Weakness, lack of principles and shortsightedness based on the “real facts on the ground” might soon threaten very “inevitability” of 2008 Demos victory..., lol.

In contrast, principled Ron Paul’s stances on many issues only gains him attention and popularity from Americans each next day only more and more. Just little bit more of those “successes in Iraq” and Ron Paul’s victory might start taking shape!

------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/pol...


November 25, 2007
As Democrats See Iraq Gains, a Shift in Tone
By PATRICK HEALY

.........
Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.

But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the general election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.
If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.

“The politics of Iraq are going to change dramatically in the general election, assuming Iraq continues to show some hopefulness,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution who is a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s and a proponent of the military buildup. “If Iraq looks at least partly salvageable, it will be important to explain as a candidate how you would salvage it — how you would get our troops out and not lose the war. The Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in.”
At the same time, there is no assurance that the ebbing of violence is more than a respite or represents a real trend that could lead to lasting political stability or coax those who have fled the capital to return to their homes. Past military successes have faded with new rounds of car bombings and kidnappings.
............

new thread

OK, folks,where do we put the Money Market funds?  CDs?

What are the Dems to do IF the violence is lessening and the streets of Baghdad are safer? The numbers of US soldiers dying seems to be about the same. Where is Michael Ware to tell us the truth?

If the Dems can't refute Bush's "surge" mission accomplished, why can't they start making the case that we were lied to about the bases which were snuck under the radar and now glare at us in the form of hugh debt. Why isn't that a campaign issue? I never hear the Dems, or anyone, even discussing them. The only conclusion I can come to is that the Dems are complicit in their existence.

Another reason to support Kucinich.

Vanguard Prime for money market, imo.

We are growing more than 3% in each quater so far and suddenly, with an election approaching there is a "recession" around every corner. . Pick any econ stat you want and we are historically in pretty good shape:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

when the value of the dollars used in that equation lost 17% of their value in the same quarter how much did you really gain

we are playing a game of chicken with the Chinese manipulation of theirs

since oil producers (paid in dollars) demand value for their scarce resource (which happens to be a product not paper) and this along with war talk with Iran is causing real pain at ther pump and heating bills are not yet due

so the only way to get good retail numbers is to increase consumer debt

and the only way to stop a housing decline is to keep interest rates artificially low causing the dollar collapse

  no I don't know who  joe veillette  is sorry

Sandy

Dear David , I do understand what you are saying, My grandparents came to this country from Italy,  thru ellis island, and they also worked very hard to make this country ,great  it was a different world when they came to this country, if they were alive they would not believe what has happen to this country,  they also had hard ships just like everyone. I was born in conn. Do you not think they are taking advantage of the immigrates right now. and the illegal aliens paying them low wages, so they don't have to pay the America people union wages, why don't some of these companies open in mexico and put them to work in their own country,and pay them the wages they pay here,it would go  a long way down there  so they can make better lives ,so they don't have to leave their families. and risk death trying to get into this country. Thank you for your response May God Bless You

Sandy

Dear Tom ,  I 'm sure you must mean he is on the corrupt list,

but which one's aren't  I would just like someone who could be honest, and not lie to the people , and someone who work's for all the people not just special interest groups.

May God Bless You

Sandy

Dear florida Gal ,  if they really believe they came from monkey's maybe they did, I believe they can't think for themselves They need to teach both, I'm sorry but I believe school don't like free thinkers , They like little robots, and kids are great thinkers their little minds want to know everything, if you sit and talk with them they would shock you just how much they really think about things.

May God Bless You

Sandy

"We are growing more than 3% in each quater so far and suddenly, with an election approaching there is a "recession" around every corner. "

Fox, lol.

Talk of recession is coming from some of the most conservative of Wall Street pundits. heh, I love to see your "rosey" talk which is every bit as ludicrous as the post by Huron John (chicken little).

The major indices are off by 10%, more write-downs coming in the credit markets.  A correction, if not a recession is coming.

Sea, you are asking the right questions. 

Phil, I agree with what you are saying.  The sad truth, though, is that lowering the interest rates now is really the only remedy.  If Bernanke chose not to do that we would ALL suffer.

Fox, keep playing that "all is rosey in the markets" tune.  At the end of the day, it's the only reason the Dems won in 92.  We're going to win the next election in large part because Repubs cannot admit that the economy is faltering.  Thankful to ya;)  We're going to win!

imo, and without making any recommendations, I personally believe that the next 6 months will be buying opportunities for the astute;). 

Dear sunlight , you are a ray of sun, and open to opinions Yes your right it is hard to make a decision, but all of us have to do it every day. God Bless You

Sandy

To Tom,    I wonder if any of them are speaking the truth, but I'm a democrat  I've listen to the debates,I believe in democracy,  I believe who ever we vote for has to work for all the people. I just believe they really have to know what the American people stand for, I think that we all want a health care system that will work for all and not just special interest group,who tend to make billions off of the american people.
I also believe in the right to bear arms, I believe in the constitution, religion,I don't want to see them take God out of everything, I also believed in praying in school. I'm tired of companies telling their employee's they can't say Merry Christmas anymore because it might offend someone, I'm tired of companies pushing plastic cards on everyone yes credit cards, They are keeping everyone in debt, We are not living the American dream, We are all pretending to live that American Dream by living on someone else's money because we can't afford to buy  all the things we want.or need   .    Gas , food, clothing, dental ,medical, and so many other things we can't afford,and if we didn't have those cards would we be able to buy these things .I think back  to my parents When owning their home free and clear ment  something When my Father was the bread winner and my Mother stayed home and took care.of the kids,because it to was an important job, but now it takes two parents to support a family, and then they can't afford  everything ,so we put everything on a card  and make payments each month ., Why should older people loss their home because they get sick . why  college students get out of college with so much debt hanging over their heads. I have so many questions but no answers, which candidate will help to straighten out all of these things.  I pray everyday for God to bless all of us for  that real America Dream and That candidate who see what is really going on.

34. he makes custom guitars...

http://www.veilletteguitars.com/

 Dear  mprov,  Do you know joe, Veillette , I married a Veillette, the grandparents came from Three rivers, Canada so I really don't know if it is a relation or not. May God Bless you Sandy

 APOLOGY  TO Howard Dean

 This is heartfelt apology to Howard Dean, I would really like to know more , I'm upset why aren't the democratic candidates , saying more    on illegal immigration, more on the health care system, What they can do for the middle class and the poor. Who work so hard and just don't seem to get anywhere, The immigrates who came to this country legally and made this Country great, who had no one give them anything for free. also why are our college students are so far in debt. before they even start their lives,

Why the government wants us to use plastic cards in stead of money. is this away to control the people. I have many questions,

will the government give me free money to get started if I go to a refugee camp.will they help me to get started in a business.if I have no money. will they pay for college,if I can't pay them back.

Now we are old,and worked all of our livies,and have nothing to show for our hard work, and if  we can't pay for our medical will they take my home, Toxic mold and all. tried to get help from the insurance they don't cover it .

tried the government they don't have any programs to help us. We are Seniors,disabled who do we turn to.       I have now vented ,  so thank you and May God Bless you

I feel that the corporations are running our government.

1. drug companies

2.insurance companies

3.oil companies

4.banking    and so many others