A Letter To My Creditors - (feel free to copy and send to yours)

Dear Creditors:

This is to inform you that as of July 1, 2011, I will be temporarily suspending all payments on my current obligations.

Unfortunately this has become necessary because, based on my current contracts, agreements and other necessary spending, I will run out of cash by August 1. While in the past, I have gone to financial institutions or – if necessary – friends and/or family to secure loans in order to stay current, ‘greater minds than mine’ have informed me that these actions have been irresponsible. Even though I have already assumed these obligations, I am advised that I should suspend paying all of my bills until such time as I have formulated a plan that will reduce my level of future spending to the point that outside financing will not be necessary.

This may take a while, as the vast majority of my expenses are for necessities; rent, food, clothing, transportation, health insurance, assault weapons, ammunition, etc. Then, of course, there’s things like phone and internet. While some I have asked feel these are unnecessary luxuries, others tell me they are essential. While I think getting rid of them entirely might actually do more harm than good, as it would greatly hamper any efforts to secure full-time employment, I’ll need to figure out a way to cut these costs.

As for luxuries such as ‘going out once in a while’, I’ve discontinued that – but as I had already cut back significantly, the present savings are minimal.

I had thought about asking my employers to pay more for my services in order to increase my revenue to a level where I might -- along with cutting back on non-essentials such as meat and fresh fruits and vegetables – be able to make ends meet. But again, I have been advised that revenue is not my problem – spending is.

So, since it would be irresponsible of me to pay current obligations and necessary expenses until I have a fiscally responsible plan to avoid future debt in place, as stated above, I will suspend all payments effective July 1, 2011. I am unable to tell you at present when the new plan will be in place, but remain confident it won’t be long, as by August I imagine I’ll be getting pretty hungry.

In the event you don’t hear from me by August 10th, just assume its my way of telling you to GO FUCK YOURSELVES you greedy blood sucking whores.

I remain confident that this necessary action will in no way impact our future business relationships, particularly in areas such as the fees and interest charged on my accounts.

Sincerely,

Fed Up American


cc. The United States House of Representatives
      The United States Senate
      The White House
.
.
.

Why The Dems and W.bama Got Their Asses Whupped In 2010

 These are thought about this article

First, apologists for the president and the Democrats rightly claim that their hands are tied: the Republicans just won't let them pass any legislation that might move the economy forward, so their only tools are ineffectual ones such as tax cuts and exhortations to the business community to invest.
But what this account leaves out is that this state of affairs is entirely of the Democrats' creation. Had the White House and the supermajorities the president started out with for two years simply done what the voters asked them to do -- and what the House actually did do with remarkable speed in 2009 -- the Democrats' hands would not be tied today.

.....

Second, by running scared and adopting Republican talking points on economics, Democrats have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Listening to the same pollster-industrial complex that advised them in 2002 to support George W. Bush's trillion-dollar unfunded bloodbath in Iraq, Democrats have joined with Republicans in offering massive giveaways to millionaires and billionaires and then telling working and middle class Americans that the sky is falling and we (they) have to tighten our (their) belts. Democrats inside the tightened beltway (with the exception of a strong contingent in the House and a dozen or two Senators) appear to have become convinced by the new conventional wisdom in Washington, that Americans aren't really concerned as much about jobs as they are about the deficit.

If you stop and think about it for a moment, that notion is absurd on the face of it. Is it really possible that Americans who have lost their jobs or fear losing them are more worried about an abstraction -- the budget deficit in Washington -- than about the realities of their lives -- that they face a budget deficit around their own kitchen table at the end of every month when they're trying to pay their rent or make their mortgage payment on their rapidly depreciating home?

.....

That brings us to the third reason so many Democrats have created a third wing of the Republican Party: because they're competing for the same corporate money, which leads them to support the same policies. The major difference between Republicans and Democrats is that virtually all of the Republicans are quite comfortable being bought because it fits their ideology, whereas most of the Democrats who are beholden to one industry or another are conflicted about it -- but not conflicted enough to pass a fair elections bill when they had the chance last year that might have taken away some of the advantages of incumbency but restored integrity to our electoral system.

.....

Americans need a choice again between two parties, not between two strains of Hoover Republicanism.
.
.
.

Thanks For Creating All These Jobs

W.bama and the democrats are just as guilty as the republicans on these issues but I felt that  since Helene Wexler took the time to compile this list I should have the decency to help spread the word.

 

Republicans said if they took control of the House of Representatives they would start creating jobs. This is a list of some of the things they’ve done, instead of creating jobs. Click on each example to find a link to an article regarding t...hat issue If you have anything to add, please include it in the comments.

Symbolically read the constitution, skipped parts of it, and also read part of the Declaration of Independence, while still claiming to be reading the constitution.

2 Congressman swore themselves in by watching the swearing-in ceremony on TV, without actually attending. They later had to be sworn in again, and 2 of their votes were deemed invalid since they had not been properly sworn in.

“Symbolically” voted to repeal the healthcare bill. Spent hours debating it beforehand, even though they knew it was purely symbolic and would not become law.

Attempting to de-fund Global Warming research.

Attempting to defund healthcare, which is also mostly symbolic.

Proposed a budget that would cut billions of dollars in aid to the poor, the homeless, and women and children.

Extended the Patriot Act.

Attempted to cut all funding for Planned Parenthood and PBS.

Attempted to redefine rape to no longer include statutory rape, incest rape, or drugged rape.

Cut Pell Grants

Attempting to cut 1 billion dollars from Head Start. This would mean that over 200,000 kids would lose their spots in preschool.

Working on adding guidelines to delay implementation of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal, despite overwhelming support for its repeal.

Proposed a bill that would let a hospitalized pregnant woman die instead of having a life saving abortion, if she needed it.

Holding hearings into “radicalization” in the American Muslim community.

Attempted to cut money to Veterans.

1 married Republican congressman was found to be looking for women on craigslist.

Refused to compromise on a budget and are threatening a Government shutdown, which will put thousands of people out of work.

Made 2 responses to President Obama’s State of the Union Address. Neither of them offered any real solutions to create jobs.

Currently considering privatizing Medicare.

Voted to fund chemical contraception for wild horses, but voted to cut funding for contraception for human women.

Voted to continue spending millions of tax payer dollars to sponsor a NASCAR racecar.

Michelle Bachmann stated she believes Glenn Beck is qualified to solve the budget deficit.

John Boehner has decided to use the Congress to defend DOMA in court, since the Justice Department will no longer defend it.

Voted against letting the last surviving, American, World War 1 veteran be honored in the Capitol building’s rotunda, after he passed away.

John Boehner has said himself that if jobs are lost because of his proposed cuts to the budget “so be it”.

John Boehner has cried excessively over his own personal history, but has not cried once for the millions of Americans who lost their jobs thanks to policies he supported while Bush was President. Policies he still supports.

  

We have only one political party now in America. Its called republidemocanocrat. Its what happens when the elephant fucks the donkey and its mongoloid offspring fucks America.

 

.

.

To My Fellow Democrats

There is nothing of "purity" in what I want from Obama (and Democrats in general)!

I need the policies that will stop the slide into poverty for my family and friends.

I am only asking for: what we used to have in this country. Not asking for anything new. Nothing. Not a thing.

I am asking Obama to merely step away from radical Right Wing policies. I want the dis-mantling of the social safety net to cease.

Stepping back from radicalism isn't ideological purity. I am not asking him to get body piercings, ride a Vespa or invite Iggy Pop to the White House.

And the casual, and continual tossing of the "P" word most likely just demonstrates that some here at DU are living in a more privileged America than I am. What's "pure" is the destruction of my blue-collar world.

Some still have the luxury of seeing (the already completed) destruction of that world and the (continuing) destruction of the middle-class as interesting little details in the Grand Game of political sport..

But it may just be a matter of time before y'all are kicked out of your cubicles and join my desperate friends in the endless lines at the Job Center.

Please stop attacking those who are suffering! You don't tri-angulate with destruction and ruin!

Just to be clear. The Democrats that I have defended, voted for, worked

and donated money to stood for the things that Democrats before us accomplished.

Things like: 8-hour workday Social Security Minimum Wage law G.I. Bill of Rights Marshall Plan NATO Peace Corps Medicare Medicaid Operation Head Start Civil Rights Act of 1964 Voting Rights Act of 1965 Water Quality Act First Man on the Moon Women's Suffrage Amendment Worker's Compensation Act Unemployment Compensation Act Rural Electrification Act FDIC Securities and Exchange Act Guaranteed Student Loan Program FMLA School Lunch Program Motor Voter Act Davis-Bacon Act Yes, these are ACCOMPLISHMENTS that benefited the common person in this country. The ones that ELECTED Democrats fought for and achieved. I am hereby drawing my line in the sand that ANY Democrat that seeks to dismantle, change, or otherwise corrupt the work that REAL Democrats before them achieved...will NOT get my vote. I don't care how high of an office they are. We have never been the party of tearing down...we have always been the party of building. If you...as an elected Democrat feel the need to tear down rock solid Democratic values, please do us ALL a favor and cross the aisle and join your brethren who ONLY believe in the betterment of the corporations and give US our fucking party back so we can get the real work done and HELP...not HURT.   So when you cry foul to the things I post and whine about me not supporting W.bama, a President that I helped elect, I politely say O FUCK YOURSELVES. I do NOT subscribe to your ridiculous hive mentality. I vote based on principles and progressive values.   Why the fuck dont you?   http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1332482 . .

Congress Sues W.bama To End War

AWESOME!!!

 

Congress Members Sue Obama to End War

Posted by davidswanson in General Discussion 

On Wednesday in federal court, 10 members of the U.S. Congress sued President Obama in an attempt to end U.S. involvement in a war in Libya.

These are the plaintiffs: Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Walter Jones (R-NC), Howard Coble (R-NC), John Duncan (R-TN), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), John Conyers (D-MI), Ron Paul (R-TX), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Tim Johnson (R-IL), and Dan Burton (R-IN).

According to a statement from Congressman Kucinich:

"The lawsuit calls for injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the plaintiffs and the country from (1) the policy that a president may unilaterally go to war in Libya and other countries without a declaration of war from Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution; (2) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in violation of the express conditions of the North Atlantic Treaty ratified by Congress; (3) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the United Nations without authorization from Congress; (4) from the use of previously appropriated funds by Congress for an unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Libya or other countries; and (5) from the violation of the War Powers Resolution as a result of the Obama Administration’s established policy that the President does not require congressional authorization for the use of military force in wars like the one in Libya."

I would have liked to see the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the United Nations Charter extend that list to seven items, but doing so would probably not have altered the result. What will the result be?

During the 70 years since Congress last declared war, the congressional authorizations of war have grown weaker, vaguer, and broader, but the Libya War has set a new mark by excluding Congress entirely. Courts have also tried to claim that even wars never explicitly authorized by Congress become constitutional once Congress funds them. For years now, we've watched congressional "critics" and "opponents" of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan vote over and over again to dump hundreds of billions of dollars into them. The Libya War, here too, sets a new mark: Congress has not authorized a dime for it.

Courts, nonetheless, might be inclined to do the very same thing Congress does on these matters: pass the buck. Congress, a court might argue, has the power to declare a war over, to forbid the spending of funds on it, and/or to impeach its architect. Congress has done nothing of the sort. A growing number of senators is writing a letter to the president. "My kids have done that," a judge might remark. The House has held a vote on a resolution to end the war and failed to pass it. The House has attached amendments to two different bills forbidding funds from those bills being used for the Libya War, but those bills have yet to pass the Senate, and funds can come through other bills. The House, sadly, passed another amendment to one of those bills that would effectively transfer the powers of warmaking to presidents. Even once those bills pass, they might have to be applied retroactively to impact this case. The House has also passed a non-binding resolution expressing its concern that the Libya War has never been authorized, but failing to do anything about it. I don't know on which side of this case that odd resolution will provide support, if either.

Let's assume, however, that the courts do not try to pass the buck back to Congress. Is the Libya War illegal?

I spoke to a college class Tuesday night, and one student asked me if I wasn't being extremist or tactless by calling a war, and in fact all war, illegal. But "illegal" is not a derogatory description like "fat" or "ugly." "Illegal" has a very precise meaning. It means that an action violates written laws. The current war violates the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which under Article VI of the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It violates the UN Charter which holds the same status. It also, in its conduct, almost certainly violates the terms of a UN resolution that is being used to justify it. But let's look at the five points the court will look at:

(1) the policy that a president may unilaterally go to war in Libya and other countries without a declaration of war from Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution;

This was the clear meaning of the Constitution, and overwhelmingly its interpretation both by those who wrote it and by those who used and studied it through most of US history. The catch is the past 70 years of history. If a law is violated routinely for 70 years, must it or can it or should it be enforced?

(2) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in violation of the express conditions of the North Atlantic Treaty ratified by Congress;

The North Atlantic Treaty affirms the UN Charter, and the UN Charter forbids war. But if that were the argument that the plaintiffs intended, wouldn't they have listed the UN Charter? Presumably, they intend to rely on the North Atlantic Treaty itself, Article I of which states: "The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." But there the defense can point to the UN resolution used to launch the war, and it will become necessary to point out that the United Nations passed a resolution for a humanitarian intervention, a no fly zone, a cease fire, an arms embargo, and a ban on foreign ground troops, but it was immediately used to bomb civilians, introduce arms, and employ foreign ground troops, not to mention drone bombings and an apparent assassination attempt. But if that were the argument the plaintiffs intended, wouldn't they have listed the UN resolution on Libya? Perhaps they intend to argue that the North Atlantic Charter permits only wars in response to an attack on a NATO member, and that no NATO member was attacked. Fair enough. But the War Powers Resolution (see #5) is also only applicable if the United States is attacked, and everyone simply pretends otherwise, including presumably this lawsuit.

(3) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the United Nations without authorization from Congress;

Here we return to the same ground as point #1 above. The Constitution says one thing. The historical precedent, including President Clinton's actions in the former Yugoslavia, say something else. Again, does violation of a law serve to permit future violation of a law?

(4) from the use of previously appropriated funds by Congress for an unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Libya or other countries;

Congress has appropriated incomprehensibly vast sums of money for the military and for secret budgets. President Bush the Lesser gave himself and his successor(s) the power to secretly transfer funds to secret budgets. The CIA has been given the "legal" if unconstitutional power to do just about anything it wants, and to keep what it does secret. One result of that could be that this case is conducted in secret or is shut down due to secrecy concerns. Obama authorized the CIA to arm Libyan fighters, and the CIA has been on the ground in Libya since before the official launch of the US/NATO war. It would not be surprising to hear from the US Justice Department as early as today the cry of "state secrets privilege." NATO might also serve as a money laundering operation here; once funds are handed over to NATO, it could be argued they are beyond US law.

(5) from the violation of the War Powers Resolution as a result of the Obama Administration’s established policy that the President does not require congressional authorization for the use of military force in wars like the one in Libya.

Clearly the Libya War is illegal under the War Powers Resolution. Either it is illegal because the United States was not attacked. Or it is illegal because required information has not been reported to Congress. Or it is illegal because it has gone on for over 60 days without a declaration or authorization of war. In no case is it legal.

The same might be said of the unmentioned Kellogg-Briand Pact. That pact bans war. This is a war. It is not a war that fits the exception for an attack on the United States, because Libya did not attack the United States or even threaten to or even attack or threaten to attack any US ally or imperial outpost. In no case is the war legal.

Unless it's not a war but something else, which is another argument we might see. There is a lot at stake in the question of whether dozens of small and even unmanned killing operations around the world are wars or something else. And if they are something else, do we have any laws that apply to them?

Laws are what people choose to make of them. So is Congress. Whether or not this lawsuit succeeds, for Congress to continue to exist as the first branch of our government, it will have to stop deferring to the judicial branch and instead stand on its own two feet.

On June 3rd the House blocked a resolution to end the war by passing a toothless resolution asking that all sorts of information be provided by the President within 14 days. That comes due this Friday. It would not be shocking if the President missed the deadline or failed to actually include much of the requested information.

The House could then pass the resolution it rejected two weeks ago, ending the war. Or it could pass one barring the use of any funds for the war. Either such measure would have to be passed by the Senate as well.

The House on its own could simply refuse to appropriate any funds for the war. The Senate would not be needed. But thus far the House has already done that, and the funds have simply been found elsewhere in the President's imperial pockets. This is why the decision on point #4 above is extremely important.

In the end, the continued meaningful existence of the House rests on the impeachment power. Bruce Fein has already drafted articles of impeachment for Obama over Libya. But the impeachment power was effectively removed during the presidencies of Clinton and Bush. Its revival does not appear imminent.
.
.

Who Is The Worse?

NBA versus NFL - u gotta love this..........

Even if you aren't a sports fan this is very interesting!

36 have been accused of spousal abuse,
7 have been arrested for fraud,
19 have been accused of writing bad checks,
117 have directly or indirectly

bankrupted at least 2 businesses,
3 have done time for assault,

71, I repeat 71!!! cannot get a credit card due to bad credit, 
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges, 8 have been arrested for shoplifting, 
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits,
and  
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year !!!

Can you guess which organization this is?

NBA? NFL?

Give up yet?


Neither!

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress

The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
.
.
.

America CANNOT Fix Itself

Do you know why America can't fix itself?

Posted by MrScorpio in General Discussion 

It's because we make a national pastime of kicking people when they're down. One bad break brings a lot more insults to injuries. It doesn't matter what "side" you're on. All sides do it gleefully.

Make a mistake and you're toast.

Lose your job, get a minor conviction, get caught doing something that you otherwise shouldn't be doing and you might as well hang yourself. Because you're going to fall off the planet, at least where this country is concerned. Once you're shit outta luck, there are lots of people who can exploit your shit-outta-luckness with a very lucrative and perfectly legal business model.

Hell, you don't even have to screw up… All you need to have done to you is to be classified as an "outsider". Then you're NEVER legit.

Disenfranchising voter rolls, mass round ups of undocumented workers, denigrating public servants and private sector community workers… It's all part of the game.

When people are classified as "useless" and kicked to the curb en masse, then a cycle starts that never stops…

We can never stop looking for Wiccans to immolate. Too much fun!

The rest of us, we're scared of being next. Which is exactly how the big boys love to have us.

Besides we shouldn't ask for whom the fiery stake burns, right? For at any given time, it could burn for us.

So, I don't apologize for taking sides and staying loyal… After all, I'm a Scorpio, that's how we roll. I stick with Democrats and have done so all my life, even when they screw up. At least I have a side to stick with. When a Democrat is down, I'd rather pick him or her up. I'd rather be a friend and lend a hand up, instead of someone who turns his back. What embarrasses me isn't what someone else does, it would be if I turned my back on a friend.

I don't think that I could look at myself in the mirror if I did that.

Which is why it bothers me that the same goes for the poor, the unemployed, the person paying back their debt to society and the people who are trying to make a better life for their families even if they have to cross some artificial border, and the cheer squad is always out to get them. The chorus is happy to say, " Gimme an F ...u ...c ...k ...'e ...m ...a ...l ...l. What does that spell? FUCK 'EM ALL!" Nothing leaves and emptiness in the pit of my soul like shit like that.

I'd rather look for the best possible deal for everyone, rather than cheering on the select few genetic lottery winners, as they roll their loaded dice and win again.

I figure that we're all better off when we're ALL better off.

If we want to turn this country around, we should all be a bit more loyal to ourselves and look out for each other, instead of promoting the rich fuckers who are getting even richer by getting us all to fuck each other over… And cheering about it.
.
.

How To Fix Our Ecoomy

There is much gnashing of teeth today as we realize that following Herbert Hoover policie for the past few years (giving even more money to the wealthiest and scraps to the rest) has not turned the economy around: indeed, we seem to be taking another turn for the worse. Real unemployment (as measured prior to Clinton's re-jiggering) continues to be stuck at almost 20%, and we lost many jobs last month after accounting for population growth.



20% FUCKING PERCENT!!!

So what do we need to turn this sucker around? We need money in the hands of working Americans. The data clearly show that if you give a dollar to a rich person it just goes into the bank: indeed, the wealthy and corporations are sitting on unprecedented piles of cash already, when we give them more money they just make those piles bigger.

Give a dollar to a working person, they spend it on stuff. Food. Clothing. Cars. Appliances. Housing and renovations.

There are multiple ways to get money into the hands of working Americans:

1. We can cut their taxes. Do you know that the median American pays twice as much in taxes (as a percentage of income) as they did during the economic boom years of the 1950s and 1960s? (The wealthiest Americans pay two-thirds less than they did back then). Of course, we should also restore taxes on the wealthiest to historical levels, so as to keep funding government.

2. We can have a middle class bailout, a jobs program like FDR got started. If it's anywhere near the size of the bailout that the bankers got (trillions of dollars in gifts and loans, with no important strings attached), then we would be in much better shape. In FDR's first four years as President, unemployment halved and GDP increased 8% per year.

3. We can forgive debt, or lower usurious interest rates that many pay on credit card and other debt.

That's it. that's what we need to do.

Now we hear, from both parties, that we need to cut government spending. This will mostly cut spending on working Americans, which will fuck the economy up worse. The cuts have already started, and we see that the result is the economy heading down for another dip. Al while the almighty savior, the poster child for hope and change,  CONTINUES the failed policies that got us into this mess. This is madness. W.bama has done NOTHING - not a mother fucking thing - to turn the American economy around.

Yet his moronic supporters make any excuse they can to avoid facing the reality that their mesiah is nothing but a Trojan horse with a huge hairy Bush.


.
.
.