VOTE REPUBLICAN!
nick cobb
Dec 28, 9:09 AM (ET)
By LEIGH STROPE
WASHINGTON (AP) - Already facing a sputtering economy and slow hiring,
nearly 800,000 unemployed Americans face a new woe Saturday when their
federal unemployment benefits end.
Democrats and labor unions, sensing political opportunity, are blaming
the cuts on President Bush and Republicans in Congress. Bush, in a late
show of support for an extension, urged Congress last week to get it
done when lawmakers return to work next month.
"Regrettably, the House Republican leadership turned their backs on
these families and refused to act, and the administration chose not to
intervene before Congress adjourned," Senate Democratic leader Tom
Daschle said Friday. "This inaction by Republicans was unconscionable
then and it is even more so now."
Congress left for the year without extending the federal benefits,
meaning that 750,000 to 800,000 unemployed workers will get cut off
Saturday. Another 95,000 jobless workers will exhaust their state
benefits each week afterward. Already, 1 million people have exhausted
all of their benefits.
There were two competing bills that languished: A $5 billion plan from
the Democrat-controlled Senate that would have extended benefits 13
weeks for people now receiving them or who were newly eligible, and a
$900 million plan from the GOP-led House for five extra weeks for
workers in a few states with high unemployment rates.
"It's unfortunate that the Senate didn't pick up our unemployment
package and pass it," said John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.
Bush has now sent a "very strong message" to Congress to extend the
benefits and make them retroactive, said Labor Department spokeswoman
Kathleen Harrington. The agency is confident that benefits will be
extended, she said, and has been relaying that to many governors who are
calling with questions.
Some states will continue to process claims for benefits and at least
one state, Idaho, will keep paying them with the expectation that
funding will be available early next year, she said.
Democratic lawmakers rallied Friday in New York to put pressure on their
Republican colleagues. Also, the AFL-CIO arranged a news conference in
New York City featuring several unemployed workers whose benefits are
being cut off.
Scott Carmichael, 45, of Rowlett, Texas, was one of them. He was laid
off in June from his job at WorldCom, where he had worked for 17 years.
Carmichael's state benefits are running out and he had counted on an
extra 13 weeks of federal benefits that he now won't get because of
Congress' inaction on the extension. The biweekly check of $574 helped
him and his wife Laurie pay the mortgage and health care costs for their
two children, ages 1 and 3.
Mrs. Carmichael is now considering returning to work, possibly at night,
so she and her husband can alternate caring for their children.
"It's really an act of discrimination," she said, expressing anger at
Congress. "They give themselves a raise before they leave and they leave
all of us Americans high and dry."
Congress authorized a 3.1 percent pay raise for themselves to $154,700
next year. Lawmakers' salaries have risen $18,000 since 1999.
Joyce Smith, 52, of Ardmore, Tenn., exhausted her $190 weekly benefits
in August. She was laid off from her factory job more than a year ago
and still hasn't found work.
"There's not much out there. They don't want people my age," she said.
"It's been a panic and a struggle and you just go into a depression."
As the last Congress neared its final days, with the rival Senate and
House bills going nowhere, the White House stayed on the sidelines.
But Bush last week ended his silence and said in his radio address that
extending benefits should be the "first order of business" for the new
Congress. But he failed to say which plan he supported, who should be
covered and for how long.
"I only wish that he could have made that statement several weeks
earlier, in time for the holidays," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.,
said at the news conference. She will deliver the Democrats' weekly
radio address Saturday on the loss of unemployment benefits.
GOP leaders contended the Senate plan's $5 billion price tag was too
costly and poorly targeted. They also said the economy was improving.
The nation's unemployment rate climbed to 6.0 percent last month. In
recent recessions, the rate was much higher - 10.8 percent in 1983 and
7.8 percent in 1992.
Supporters of an extension argue that it would boost the economy by
giving money to the people who need it most.
Alexander Arnakis
>800,000 Jobless Americans to Lose Aid
>
Nick, aren't you the one who was wondering where the deficit-reduction
and balanced-budget goals went? Well, it's clear that the budget will
be balanced (if at all) on the backs of the poor. The wealthy will get
their tax breaks. After all, this is "compassionate conservatism"!
nick cobb
wants. You too can be the first to have your son or daughter brought
home in a body bag!---Gee, didn't ya' know, Israel can get our "Burning
Bush" to do most anything!---
U.S. Orders Thousands of Troops to Gulf
Dec 28, 10:19 AM (ET)
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon has ordered a major military force to the
Persian Gulf in preparation for a possible war with Iraq.
Thousands of troops, two aircraft carrier battle groups and scores of
combat aircraft have received orders since Christmas to ready themselves
to head to the region in January and February, defense officials said
Friday. Military personnel will go to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman
and Bahrain, among other locations.
The Bush administration waited until after the holiday to issue the
orders, which alert units across the United States and possibly overseas
to prepare for deployment to the Persian Gulf, officials said. Officials
said tens of thousands of military personnel will receive orders to go
to the region, but a precise figure was unavailable.
Some of the units being sent to the region are combat-ready, including
infantry units, warships and strike aircraft, officials said. Many more
are logistics, engineering and support teams, which will prepare for the
arrival of even larger combat units in the months ahead, officials said.
They will add to the 50,000 U.S. military personnel already in the region.
"We don't comment on specific unit deployments. However, forces will be
flowing to the region to be in place should the president decide to use
them," said Jim Wilkinson, a spokesman at U.S. Central Command, which
would oversee operations in Iraq.
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last
week such deployments will "reinforce diplomacy." The Bush
administration hopes the threat of military action will increase the
pressure on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to fully disclose his efforts
to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
The Pentagon ordered the Navy to select and prepare two aircraft carrier
battle groups and two amphibious assault groups to go to the region,
defense officials said. The orders, sent in the last two days, require
the Navy to have the vessels ready to sail to the seas around Iraq
within 96 hours after a certain date in January, the officials said,
speaking on the condition of anonymity. They did not specify that date.
The Navy has determined that one the carriers will be the USS George
Washington. The ship just arrived home to Norfolk, Va., from the Persian
Gulf region and has remained ready to return. The Navy has not yet
decided on the second carrier, but officials said it will either be the
Everett, Wash.-based USS Abraham Lincoln, which is currently in port at
Perth, Australia, having just left the Persian Gulf region, or the USS
Kitty Hawk, currently in port in Japan.
An aircraft carrier battle group includes six to eight surface escorts,
including cruisers, destroyers, frigates and other vessels, dozens of
strike and support aircraft and about 7,500 sailors. An amphibious ready
group has about 2,200 Marines.
The defense officials said the amphibious assault groups have not yet
been selected. Those groups center on a large, carrier-like vessel that
can launch helicopters and carry Marines.
Already in the region is the carrier USS Constellation and the
amphibious assault ship USS Nassau, and their escorts, officials said.
The Nassau group carries another 2,200 Marines.
A fourth carrier group, centered on the USS Harry S. Truman, is in the
Mediterranean Sea.
In addition, the U.S. Navy hospital ship Comfort is expected to put to
sea from its home port in Baltimore next week and prepare for action,
military officials said Friday. It will be headed to Diego Garcia, a
British island in the Indian Ocean where the United States bases
numerous military aircraft, to support any potential conflict with Iraq.
The 1,000-bed floating hospital will initially sail with a crew of 61
civilian mariners and 225 Navy personnel, including enough doctors to
support two operating rooms, said Marge Holtz, spokeswoman for the
Navy's Military Sealift Command. Hundreds more will be flown to the ship
as needed, she said.
Air Force officials said units from five U.S.-based combat wings have
received orders to prepare to deploy. They include F-15 fighters from
Langley Air Force Base, Va.; F-15E Strike Eagles from Seymour Johnson
Air Force Base, N.C.; B-1B bombers from Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D.;
rescue helicopters and Predator drones from Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.;
and C-130 cargo planes and possibly more rescue helicopters from Moody
Air Force Base, Ga.
Air tankers and transport aircraft are also expected to take part,
officials said. Dozens of fighters already based in the Persian Gulf fly
daily patrols over most of Iraq.
The size of the Army deployment was not clear, but it included infantry
as well as support units, officials said. The Army also keeps air
defense units in the region.
Last week, officials said the Army was expected to deploy troops from
the 1st Armored Division and 1st Infantry Division, both based in
Germany, as well as an air mobile unit.
The main Marine Corps contingent is likely to be the 1st Marine
Expeditionary Force, based at Camp Pendleton, Calif. The 1st MEF's
headquarters unit already has moved to Kuwait to prepare for combat
operations.
A Coast Guard unit, based in Tacoma, Wash., that operates six small
patrol boats has been deployed to the Persian Gulf, according to the
office of Sen. Patty Murray.
vj...@biostrategist.com
Sheesh! When did you guys turn into liverhole dumboclucks?
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bio$trategist
BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Fooey on GUI: [MS,X] Windows is for Bimbos]
digimortal
"nick cobb" <ni...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:3E0DE3CC...@cris.com...
nick cobb
the U.S.? Who is Iraq REALLY threatening? Too obvious for you?
nick cobb
digimortal
nick cobb
Mexico lies untapped oil reserves larger than Alaska's oil and the
Mideast oil reserves put together? It's true. It will take several years
to get to it all, but it's there. So why Iraq? Strategic importance!
Protect Israel, watch Al Qaeda, watch Saudi Arabia, watch Iran, watch
Pakistan, watch Caspian Sea oil developments, etc.
Saddam the bad guy is a convenient excuse!
Alexander Arnakis
>............ So why Iraq? Strategic importance!
>Protect Israel, watch Al Qaeda, watch Saudi Arabia, watch Iran, watch
>Pakistan, watch Caspian Sea oil developments, etc.
>
>Saddam the bad guy is a convenient excuse!
>
Bingo! But....... all those other goals *are* legitimate and
worthwhile.
The fact is, we're in a box. If, at this juncture, we do nothing, the
consequences for us will be catastrophic. And that's putting it
mildly!
++
nick cobb wrote:
> 800,000 Jobless Americans to Lose Aid
Jobless Americans?
expendable
One smart bomb headed to Iraq?
priceless
Vote Republican?
I usually do
:(
Galina
nick cobb
right-wing warring leader leads to war. That leads to death and kids in
body bags -- war ain't cheap anymore. Ask Sharon!
Alexander Arnakis
>Wrong again! Bush has no idea what can of worms he's opening. A
>right-wing warring leader leads to war. That leads to death and kids in
>body bags -- war ain't cheap anymore. Ask Sharon!
>
There won't be any more (American) body bags than in Afghanistan. As
for the long-term occupation of Iraq (some people talk about a 10- or
15-year presence), that will be handed off to our feckless "allies" --
those who are now wringing their hands about the initial assault. When
they see how quickly Saddam collapses, they'll be more than happy to
sign on. We'll just stick around to make sure the oil starts flowing.
(If you don't believe me, just wait until February. We'll see who's
proved right.)
The bombing in Grozny has all but assured Russian cooperation with us
on Iraq. With a Russo-American solidarity front, God help the
Chechens!
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Jobless Americans?
>
>expendable
>
>One smart bomb headed to Iraq?
>
>priceless
>
>Vote Republican?
>
>I usually do
>
>:(
>
against al Qaeda, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and on and on --
will tend to put the jobless to work making endless munitions. (Not to
mention that the reinstatement of the draft will take up hundreds of
thousands more.) Since we can't produce consumer goods competitively
(China seems to have sewn up that market), we'll produce war goods and
simply take what we need!
digimortal
as well. Do you think hey would survive a non-conventional attack on Israel
by Saddam with WMD???
"nick cobb" <ni...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:3E0E2EF4...@cris.com...
digimortal
start a large mid-east war, wait and Saddam grows stronger with more WMD...
"Alexander Arnakis" <alexande...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:9tks0v4kpcprgbni4...@4ax.com...
nick cobb
stupid. Mamy, many Americans are out of work and the U.S. is in a
recession. 2003 looks bleek and Bush decides on war! HOW STUPID IS THIS?
An unnecessary war with far reaching complications and N. Korea is
next. What a stupid government we have! No matter what moral issues you
point out with Clinton, we had 8 years of relative peace, a strong
economy, countries around the world REALLY seeking peace, a surplus of
monies in the government coffers and a balanced budget. WHAT HAPPENED IN
TWO
YEARS?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Alexander Arnakis
>Spending $200 Billion dollars to get rid of and test new weapons is just
>stupid. Many, many Americans are out of work and the U.S. is in a
>recession.
Where do you think that $200 billion will go? It's a make-work,
jobs-creation program! (And, of course, the corporate bigwigs will get
their cut along the way.) It's payback time for the Republican Party
benefactors!
> 2003 looks bleak and Bush decides on war! HOW STUPID IS THIS?
It's probably the smartest thing Bush has done. A war would pump up
the economy, divert people's attention from social inequities, and
insure a vast supply of oil. The danger to Bush is that his popularity
may peak too far ahead of the 2004 elections. That's why he has to
look for more plausible targets *after* Iraq. Maybe the North Koreans
are doing him a favor.
BTW, Greek TV is reporting today that information from Ariel Sharon
indicates that the starting date for the war with Iraq is February
27th. I think it's going to be well before that date.
digimortal
happens overnight Cobb. You are being very naive. This all actually began in
Clinton's last year. In fact IMO Clinton made it very easy (and was warned
and did nothing) for terror groups to set up cells here...
"nick cobb" <ni...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:3E0FDA19...@cris.com...
digimortal
aden_nuclear_2
"digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:auop2p$ncr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Mike Zuchick
I have noticed that when a Republican takes office in the USA four things
generally follow..
The Rich get Richer
The Poor get Poorer
American Jobs go down the tubes
Wars begin..
Eisenhower: Vietnam and Korea Part I
Reagan: Granada
Bush I: Desert Storm (Unfinished or Part I)
Bush II: Iraq and Korea (Part II)
--
God Bless,
Misha Kozupchik aka Mikhail Kozubchik
God Bless and Keep you and yours.
May the Saint Joseph and the Blessed Theotokos watch over you and yours.
www.cedarworks.1plan.net
www.geocities.com/zuchick
"++" <arch...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3E0E6405...@erols.com...
nick cobb
Clinton was not handed prosperity by Bush. Were you alive in the early
90's or do you have Alzheimers? When Clinton took over, the economy
was a mess. The economic policies of the Clinton Whitehouse
worked--this is objective fact. The current policies of the Bush
administration are failing miserably, again objective fact. Now, what
happened to ALL the government surplus that was left to young Bush?
Why is the government in so much debt now? Where are the balanced
budget proposals? All of you out of work with no assistance ask
yourself, "Did all our money go to building more weapons to kill
people?" "Did all our money go to Israel to kill more Palestinians?"
And now, $200 Billion more on our backs for Iraq--a war we don't need
and no one wants! And while we are in Iraq, terrorists are creeping in
to the U.S. via Canada and Mexico to release bio-bombs in 2003! Why do
you think Bush got his shot! (Time to move to Northern Canda or
Alaska--Mongolia should be safe!)
What's REALLY needed are secure borders, limited, extensively,
screened immigration, a stronger CIA with special ops forces all over
the world for quick immediate response and a strong push for energy
development away from oil! Fuel cells won't work in the long run due
to high maintenance of replacing cells. Wind power, ocean wave power,
hydrogen power, solar power and NO MORE NUCLEAR
POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's dirty, potentially very dangerous and
storage of spent fuel rods in underground caves for hundreds of
thousands of years is plain stupid!
"digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<aup17r$b4p$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
digimortal
assessment of Clinton's administration and your suggestion that terrorism
happened under Bush's watch when it was CLEARLY under Clinton's "Free Willy"
years that these cells and the planning of 9/11 occured.
"nick cobb" <ni...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:b6548fc4.0212...@posting.google.com...
nick cobb
Independent. I don't believe all Republicans are bad nor all
Democrats, but let's look where we are. After 8 years of growth,
prosperity and limited warfare, now we are right back to where the
U.S. was in 1990--check the stats. I hate to make
over-generalizations, but the Bush's are not good for America! We
don't need more war and deficits, but diplomacy and surplus'. YES,
America must remain strong and keep the bell of Freedom ringing
worldwide, but spending $200 Billion on Iraq when a "Special Ops"
force can do the trick for $500,000 is just plain stupid. Of course,
we aren't REALLY going into Iraq for Saddam. HELLO IRAN!
"Mike Zuchick" <mzuc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<%2UP9.123606$Fq3.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...