Yes, narrow-minded people are a concern depending about what they are narrow-minded. However, I think the greater concern is the scope of the exposure people of which people avail themelves. In the recent survey illustrating that a majority of Americans don't trust the media, what was the definition of media? Those whose only exposure to media is to talk radio are going to have a skewed view of overall news content. That's why, despite my distaste for certain media personalities, I watch or listen to their broadcasts so that my view is not skewed.

Me too, Oli.

I watch Faux "News" every night, even though I believe that they are, overall, a pretty loathesome group of people. That said, I've actually come to enjoy Bill O'Reilly. He's smart, folksy and can actually write pretty darn well. Plus, he's a Marist college guy. I went to Fordham U (a Jesuit school), but my high school (Mount Saint Michael) was run by the Marist Brothers, a truly decent group of men.

It's official: Rahm Emanuel is running for Mayor of Chicago.

I don't understand, Mig. Do you think that narrow-minded people are good?

Gosh I embarrassed to admit I use to watch Fox all the time. Cable was new to me and I simply tuned in not realizing how many other political channels there were. I watched Bill O'Reilly a lot. No wonder I kept yelling at the screen every time I disagreed with him (which was often). I felt like throwing a shoe at him many times. Sean Hannity as well. No, I can't see wasting time watching Fox. It's not for me.

I do like and watch C-Span, low key as it is, and radio's NPR, both pretty decent and not leaning either way. Many times both have call-in segments and you get a good idea from all over the country what people are thinking. Even the local tv news would be ok (CBS,NBC,ABC)except they don't give anything more than your basic story which isn't enough for us political junkies who want more in-depth stories.


As far as narrow minded thinking, there can't possibly be an upside to it right???

TIS

SB, I confuse myself at times. I'm confused to who you all are calling narrow minded. Tea party people, republicans who? And why are they narrow minded?

I was commenting on Yogi's post that narrow-minded people are dangerous and I agreed that narrow-minded people are those we should fear most. So, who was I calling narrow-minded? Narrow-minded people.

So How are you SB? We don't talk much anymore.

Phew! Looks like those Clinton for VP in 2012 rumors were started by Bob Woodward (who has a well known lesbian crush on her ).

Hillary Clinton for Joe Biden Swap? Axelrod Says No Way

Tom Diemer, Politics Today

The White House has emphatically denied any notion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will replace Joe Biden as President Obama's running mate in 2012.

The latest wave of Hillary buzz was amplified Tuesday night when Bob Woodward, author of the new book "Obama's Wars," told CNN's John King that a possible Obama-Clinton ticket is "on the table." The idea is that Clinton would energize a 2012 campaign -- particularly among women. In some scenarios, Biden, former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, would take over as secretary of state.

But there's a big problem with all of this juicy speculation. The White House has consistently denied any such deal is in the works. "There's absolutely nothing to it," senior aide David Axelrod told the Washington Post late Tuesday. "The president is blessed to have a spectacular vice president and an outstanding secretary of state. They're both doing great work, and he wants them on the job." Another Obama adviser was more blunt, calling the idea "nuts." Longtime Clinton adviser James Carville also chimed in. "I'd be stunned if there's anything to it. Anything is possible in politics. But I don't know of anything beyond speculation, and I really doubt it's anything," he told the Post.

Many Clinton supporters wanted her on the 2008 ticket after she finished a close second to Obama in the primaries. But she is arguably more valuable to the administration -- and the nation -- as secretary of state then she would be as vice president, a position with few prescribed official duties.

Swap talk is nothing new. In August, a Time magazine writer suggested Obama should consider dumping Biden as he plans his reelection bid. "Amid two wars, a stubborn unemployment rate . . . might the White House need a little star power to jump-start what could be a tougher reelection than expected?" wrote contributor Dan Fastenberg. "As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton has been striking the same tone as Team No Drama Obama, as opposed to the human gaffe machine."
Earlier that month, former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder wrote in a Politico op-ed piece that Obama should replace Biden with Clinton, in part because she would help win back "middle-class independent voters," who have drifted away from the president. Working-class voters, said Wilder, have always been "more enamored of Clinton." The former governor, who is African American, didn't say it, but "working class" in this context could be code for white voters, a group Hillary ran stronger among than did Obama when they opposed each other -- sometimes bitterly -- in the 2008 primary campaign. Wilder went on to make a case against Biden, saying his verbal blunders are not only fodder for late-night comedians but have undermined "what little confidence the public may have in him."
In a piece for the Washington Post website in June, Sally Quinn wrote that Clinton and Biden, former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, should switch jobs. She argued that Clinton has done "an incredible job" at State and, even in her late 60s, would be a strong candidate for president in 2016, while Biden, who is older, has no intention of seeking the White House. In the short-term, Obama and Clinton would be a "near-unbeatable team" in 2012, according to Quinn.

A month earlier Politics Daily's Eleanor Clift beat everyone to the punch by suggesting the same thing. She wrote that "Obama's loyalty only goes so far," and if polls show an Obama-Clinton ticket would run stronger in 2012, he "might well have Biden step aside." Besides, Clift argued, Biden "would be a natural at the State Department."

But Biden as vice president got an endorsement Tuesday night from one of his predecessors, Walter Mondale. "Joe Biden is truly a great vice president," Mondale told a crowd in St. Paul, with Biden looking on. "He's truly helping the country and our president, at home and abroad. He's a strong, seasoned voice. He knows Congress and he nation."

It's been more than three decades since a president has thrown his vice president overboard. A change at the top can be seen as a sign of disarray, panic even. Dan Quayle, regarded by his critics as a lightweight, survived in 1992 but the Bush-Quayle ticket lost to Clinton-Gore. The last president to make a change was Republican Gerald Ford, who replaced Vice President Nelson Rockefeller with Sen. Bob Dole in 1976 and went on to lose to a peanut farmer from Georgia named Jimmy Carter. Mondale was his running mate.

People who refuse to believe the earth is more thn 6,000 years old are narrow minded.
People who think the earth revolves around the sun are narrow minded.
People who think all liberals are evil are narrow minded.
People who thins all conservatives are evil are narrow minded.
And most especially people who think the moon landing was fake and pro wrestling is real are narrow minded.

Over heard..

That swap would be... A Dick for a Dyke

So what do you think about the relationship between sun and earth?
(Ermm, is this still Obama related?)

Since when do posts have to bear any relationship to the announced topics?

Five Thirty Eight latest numbers project Republicans taking over House and falling just short of taking over Senate.

Will Obama learn anything from this? I hope so. But he could draw the wrong lessons as well. So far he seems to go back and forth between cajoling and scolding his base.

Hardly Obama's fault, and not unexpected, but it won't help his approval rating. That's just how it goes.

No Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment in 2011

Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Oct. 10) - As if voters don't have enough to be angry about this election year, the government is expected to announce this week that more than 58 million Social Security recipients will go through another year without an increase in their monthly benefits.

It would mark only the second year without an increase since automatic adjustments for inflation were adopted in 1975. The first year was this year.

"If you're the ruling party, this is not the sort of thing you want to have happening two weeks before an election," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

"It's not the congressional Democrats' fault, but that's the way politics works," Biggs said. "A lot of people will feel hostile about it."

The cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, are automatically set each year by an inflation measure that was adopted by Congress back in the 1970s. Based on inflation so far this year, the trustees who oversee Social Security project there will be no COLA for 2011.

The projection will be made official on Friday, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases inflation estimates for September. The timing couldn't be worse for Democrats as they approach an election in which they are in danger of losing their House majority, and possibly their Senate majority as well.

This past Friday, the same bureau delivered another painful blow to Democrats: The U.S. lost 95,000 jobs in September and unemployment remained stubbornly stuck at 9.6 percent.

Democrats have been working hard to make Social Security an election-year issue, running political ads and holding press conferences to accuse Republicans of plotting to privatize the national retirement program.

I bet they will give themselves another raise they DON'T deserve though.

Since social security will not be getting a cola I'm sure the Col won't get one from his Navy pension again.

As someone who will get her first SS on Wednesday, I was aware that there would be no raise (although that wouldn't affect me at this point). Considering the economy I'm not shocked.

Mig,

I receive a pension from the school and that is totally separate from SS income. I kind of think it wouldn't affect your husband's pension. Yet, that's military and I am not sure where the money comes from.




TIS

TIS, the lack of a an SS COLA is due to the economy, but in a good sense - inflation is next to nothing. Thus, it does not trigger the formula that, in turn, triggers the COLA.

TIS,

How ya doin? Since the Col's pension is from the gov't he didn't get a raise in January. That was the first time since he retired from the Navy 7 years ago.

Increase? Hell...my mother's SS payment was actually CUT last year by $100/month. I remember seeing the notification letter and then sure enough, seeing the lower amount.

Wow! Really? I haven't heard of any, and my mom, my MIL, her husband and my brother all get Social Security and NONE of them have had cuts!!! My mother and my MIL's husband are also very active in their senior clubs, and none of them have reported cuts.

Are you sure it wasn't for an increase in a premium and not an actual decrease in her benefit??? Geez, I hope all the members of my family are not in for an unplesant surprise soon!

SB, such a reduction may be due to an overpayment or an adjustment of benefits due to a miscalculation regarding benefits.

Or anyone else who just has SS to live on.

Well, all I know is I saw the notice and the cut was made. $100 less per month than the amount she had been getting since my father died. As everyone knows I'm sure, the surviving spouse receives the SS payment of whomever of a married couple was getting the highest amount.

olivant could be correct, although since my mother is still paying a mortgage and that is her only income except for a small pension from my father's company...it's ashame they decided she of all people was getting an OVERpayment. But I'm sure none of that stuff factors into it.

Geez, I'll have my mom check around her senior club when she goes on Thursday. Believe me, if there have been across-the-board cuts to Social Security, this group will know!!! Or perhaps, as you mentioned, it was some sort of individual correction. I'll let you know if I learn anything more!

Over here the new government are going to announce where their "draconian" cuts are to fall on October 20th. They reckon that-amongst other cuts- our old folks winter fuel allowance will be done away with. Any man over 65 and woman over 60 gets £200 a year to help with heating bills over the winter. My mother expects the worse and even though she doesn't really need the money there will be plenty of old people who do....

Times we live in i'm afraid

I was going to hold off on SS until I am 70 because of the significant difference in monthly payments from age 66 let alone age 62 (assuming my continued good health) but I am rethinking this now...maybe its better to take what I can and run. Maybe there's nothing there when I am 70.

This country has been running off the rails since the late 70's. Our priorities are totally screwed up. It is pretty clear the military-industrial complex is running things.

We can't even afford a jobs creating and very necessary tunnel under the Hudson River? Geez.

I am 40 and we have been told the mandatory state pension age,which has always been 65 to men ,will be going up to 67 and then raised again further possibly in the future.....

I don't fancy working till i drop dead

I am lucky enough to have a works and a private pension but there will be plenty of people who don't.....

Plus, you just never know, DT. A very close friend of mine turned 62 a few years ago and decided to wait. He died of a massive heart attack at 64. I realize that's a morbid way to view the choice, but it's also a realistic one.

I'll be 51 later this month, so I'm right in that age range that's really worried about missing the boat. I've been paying into Social Security for 35 years, so I would probably go postal if I'm left out when my time comes.

Well right now my SS at age 63 is not much, and because I a working I would be taxed on it anyway, so its not worth taking IMHO