Last week Pinocchio Politics brought you McLiar Bingo http://chronicle.com/review/brainstorm/b ousquet/mcliar-bingo - this week, PP has a new version with updated lies and a randomizer that makes it easy to print as many unique boards as you want.  

With McCain promising to step it up after last Wednesday's tepid performance, you can expect some king sized whoppers in this last debate, and McLiar bingo is one of the best ways to keep up with his lies as they happen.  The board features the McCain-as-Pinocchio and  includes 24 of Mac's favorite lies on the economy, energy and national security.

Also, for this economy-themed debate, Pinocchio Politics has created "Fundamentally Strong" Cocktails - a set of cocktail recipes that are the best way to drink to McCain's lies.  Drinks include "Old Fashioned Bailouts" and "Wa-Mu Martinis."

Senator Stevens has two messages for us:

1. He stands behind what he has done and is not guilty of any wrong doing.

2. He understands that he has done things that are illegal and may be subject to fines or jail time.

Well, which is it? Looks like Stevens is more interested in saving his own hid from his own wrong doings than actually representing the people of Alaska.

John Sununu is trying to subsidize Wall Street - with your Social Security dollars! Not only has he supported the risky privatization of social security in the past, given the recent turmoil in the market, he is still behind this terrible idea.

What Sununu fails to realize is that markets go through cycles of ups and down. This guarantees that every few years, senior citizens will start to draw benefits during a market down-turn, and will receive lower benefits, simply due to the nature of the market.

Does it make sense to arbitrarily risk peoples Social Security benefits just at the point in their lives when risky investments are least recommended?

No.

John Sununu needs to think more about the well-being of senior citizens, instead of the well-being of Wall Street.

Scholastic's kid vote hasn't been wrong since 1960. They correctly picked Bush twice, so they appear to be a very good indication of the way their parents vote. It makes sense.

The score? Obama 57 - 39% with 4% undecided. 250,000 kids were polled. Just on MSNBC.

http://content.scholastic.com/browse/art icle.jsp?id=3750501

Crossposted from The Motley Moose

The Palin Fail on abuse of power and ethics violation is a matter of record now.  A non-partisan legislative council convicted her of those charges.  The McCain machine response is that she wins because she does not face certain censure and impeachment due to her violations, only potential censure and impeachment.  They - and most of the media - have missed the point.

The Palin administration has been convicted of rank amateurism.  If this is the "executive experience" she touts, we are better off hiring an experienced executive crook like Ken Lay.

At least one person in the media didn't miss that.

Recent weeks and the huge costs of bailing out the gamblers in the financial industry seem to have succeeded in taking healthcare off the table for both campaigns. Despite many requests by the public to cover this issue, the candidates two (and a half) debates largely avoided the subject of healthcare.

Meanwhile, a much-needed debate has been taking place on healthcare blogs about the uninsured and uninsurables, and the kinds of cost shifting that will need to be done to increase the number of healthy Americans who are insured without spending much money. (or any money, if the government proceeds in bailing out the failed gambles of the financial industry, helping well to do homeowners who are behind on ther mortgages, etc., instead.) It seems to me to strongly indicate that the people who will spend more will be those least able to afford it, the uninsured or soon to be uninsured who have been sick at one time, or who are chronically ill, and their families.

Also, its clear that uncovered costs will rise, especially under McCain and his shift to individual coverage, meaning that the number of bankruptcies caused by medical debt will increase from its already high 52% of all bankruptcies.)

Since, under McCain's plan, millions of Americans will lose employer-provided healthcare plans they will probably be forced to either buy individual insurance based on their risk. (which would be a known, not an unknown, for those with chronic conditions, individual "customers" who insurance companies do not want, and currently spend approximately 27% of their staff salaries weeding out.)

One option for those thousands of dollars saved by buying inadequate coverage under "choice", and for the well to do who can no longer afford insurance has been and will be Health Savings Accounts.

Another blog analyzed the numbers, but also stated that the analysis was based on "specifics" that had not been published and which probably would change.

Another blog points out that universal coverage is no panacea if it fails to contain costs. ("care in Massachusetts is extremely expensive, thanks to supply-side factors -- which means expanding and sustaining full coverage is, fiscally speaking, a tough proposition." in other words, it becomes too expensive for those who need it the most!)

I think the number of uninsured will remain high unless some way is provided to pay the astronomical cost of care for the one fifth of Americans who are or have been sick.

The known risk represented by people who have been sick is high, insurance companies don't want them as "customers", even if they are forced to qute them a "fair price" (that allows them to make at least some money on the total cost of their care) that price will be much higher than they can afford without large subsidies. (Much higher than the current average cost of approx $12,000 a year for a family of three)

Hello fellow progressives.

As you may know, I am a long-time Green Party supporter. The last time I voted for a democrat for president was 1996.

Well, it's 2008. I'm voting for Obama. He isn't perfect, but he'll be pretty good.

Gordon Smith is a party animal. He's busy throwing a party for the big players on Wall Street - he supports privatizing social security so it can be risked in the stock market.

He has supported tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.

He has supported tax breaks for the oil industry during a time of record profits.

Gordon Smith's party has left a mess that we will have to clean up. Lets tell him the party's over!