Cleo's Mom

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom As far as change goes - it takes two parties to be bipartisan and all we've seen from the republicans is dissent, obstructionism and complaints and defense of the status quo, which of course always benefits the "haves" . But how does that explain the fact that more people feel like me than like you? Actually, I don't believe that more people feel like you than me. Obama was elected in a landslide, turned red states blue. It's just that those who oppose Obama and everything he stands for have become very vocal and are getting their 15 minutes of fame.

I think this Catholic nun said it very well in her letter to the editor. This is someone who knows and interprets the bible and certainly is a christian. Anger and fear work against the common good - Open Letters - post-gazette.com

BJean - not that those like you and me, who understand the facts, need more data to prove our points, but in speaking to the AFL-CIO, President Obama said he would fight the culture of irresponsibility that allowed the top 5% of ther earners in the nation to garner the vast majority of the economic growth during the last decade while the middle class Americans saw their inflation-adjusted wages decline. You don't see or hear anything from the sign carriers about what the bush tax cuts cost us taxpayers. Or what it cost in terms of lost revenue. The cost of healthcare or the stimulus pales in comparison to the tax cuts and the Iraqi war combined.

Well said, BJean. President Obama has said all along that he was going to tackle the tough issues that previous presidents, especially bush, passed on. Bush just kicked the can down the street. And Obama said that if he is a one term president because he has the guts to tackle these difficult and contentious issues, then so be it. The economy was the number one issue when he got elected. It was head and shoulders above all other issues. Now, exactly what did the people want President Obama to do about the economy? If the banks failed - our economy would fail. If people didn't get more money in their pockets, there would be little spending, thus putting our economy in further decline. Was Wall Street at fault for getting us into this mess? Absolutely!! And they were bailed out in spite of their greedy decisions - but to not bail them out would have put us in a depression. Instead of reading our current headlines that say the recession is basically over, there are signs of life in the economy, the job loss has slowed down - we would be reading headlines that say: Economy in full blown depression, unemployment to reach 20% by year's end. No one, including Pres. Obama, liked having to bail out the banks. But he wasn't responsible for the de-regulations that allowed Wall Street to jeopardize our economy. The republicans who pushed through the deregulations were. Now, President Obama is pushing for more regulation for Wall Street so that their greed cannot destroy our economy like it did last year. It will be interesting to see if the republicans support this. The bank bailouts have helped our economy and some have begun paying the government (us taxpayers) back with interest. The stimulus has helped do just what it said - stimulate the economy. Much of the stimulus was in the form of a tax cut for wage earners. You don't hear a lot about this tax cut from those carrying signs that say things like "Zoos have an african lion and the white house has a lyin' african". People have more money in their pockets from tax cuts, the stimulus has saved or created a million jobs and the recession appears to be over. But it took money to solve these problems and stave off a full blown depression. Now imagine what those signs would say if Pres. Obama had done nothing and we were in a depression complete with bread lines? As far as change goes - it takes two parties to be bipartisan and all we've seen from the republicans is dissent, obstructionism and complaints and defense of the status quo, which of course always benefits the "haves" .

Most people want a cleaner, greener environment but don't want to take the painful steps to become less dependent on foreign oil or put the money into greener, renewable energy endeavors. Most people want more and better paying american jobs. But they aren't willing to pay more for products made in America. They would rather pay for cheap chinese imports at Walmart or those goods/services made available by illegal immigrants. Why do you think employers in the US hire illegals? Because they will work for next to nothing and they can't get americans to do so. I'm not saying this is right, it isn't. I'm only saying that Americans won't pay more for these goods/services if those jobs went to americans and paid well. People do not want to pay more for their healthcare but don't want to support the changes that would help healthcare costs go down. Most people enjoy and like their social security and medicare but don't want the government in other people's healthcare. It's a case of "I have it, I like it, but I don't want you to have it." Most people oppose pollution and want a greener earth but don't want to do anything to help it get there or to pay for the programs that would help. The issues that Pres. Obama is tackling are enormous and some will take decades to see results. But these are issues that past presidents ignored. If we keep doing what we always did, we will keep getting what we always have. We can't sustain that. I, for one, am glad that he is addressing these problems and as painful as some solutions might be I think it has to be done.

Industries have been putting out carbon emissions without any penalties. They have been given carte blanche. Now they will have to pay. Or stop. Some of that cost will be passed on to the consumer but we all have to pay for a cleaner earth. It is part of our responsibility for living here.

The social security yearly raises are tied to the inflation index and they aren't getting a raise this year because it is too low. Costs for specific things like healthcare and food have gone up, but we are in a recession with a low inflation index. When interest rates are sky high, like under Carter, then we are in full fledge inflation. Interest rates are low now. But the buying power of the middle class has been severly reduced because wages have not kept pace with the cost of living, mostly due to the rising cost of healthcare.

Were you concerned about people without cable when Laura was spending $1.4 billion? No, you only add it as a post script when bashing Michelle. Actually inflation (the cost of living) is down except for the cost of healthcare which is rising much, much faster than wages and is not the result of government corruption but rather the result of insurance greed.

Ever occur to you that maybe the Southern Poverty Law Center is a decidedly liberal organization and skewers the numbers? I don't know if they do or not, but I'd consider the possibility before I started down the goofy road of "conservative = hater". So what if they're liberal? Read the link and you can decide whether they just fabricated the right wing terrorist plots listed. My point is the extremists on the right (as opposed to the extremists on the left) have been responsible for more terrorism, murders and killing because of their hatred of (see list in my previous post) than those on the left. They are also more likely to be armed to the teeth and listen to the hate spewed on what dominates our air waves that contributes to sending them over the edge and fuels their hatred. If you can find evidence that the left wing nuts have perpetuated murders, killings and terrorism in our country's history to the extent that the right has, please provide it. And I never said conservative = haters. I just said the right wing nuts have been more responsible (than left wing nuts) for the hate crimes committed in this country since the days of lynching to now.

You want the judicial system to decide your health care? That doesn't make sense. Right now my employer and insurance company decide my healthcare. I want the government to give my employer & me more choices, including a public option. And regulations for the private insurance industry about pre-existing conditions, dropping your insurance when you get sick, etc..

So, choice of smoking is ok, but choice of not having insurance is not? Hmmmmmm..... You don't get a choice when it comes to car insurance. You have to purchase it. You can't get a mortgage without home owner's insurance. You have to have it. I don't want to pay for the healthcare of those who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it. If someone chooses to smoke, that doesn't affect me. And in those situations where their second hand smoke would - those have been controlled by laws forbidding workplace & restaurant smoking, etc..as it should be.

As Howard Dean has said repeatedly - heathcare reform without the public option is just putting $60 billion/year into the private insurance industry. Why wouldn't they salivate at that? That's sure not what I support or what normal, middle America wants either.

I haven't heard anyone, including Pres. Obama, say that allowing insurance to be bought across state lines is off the table. And as for tort reform being significant to lowering healthcare costs - well that subject is just a red herring and distraction from the real issues. The Washington Independent And I want a jury of my peers to decide my award in a medical malpractice case. To infringe on this right would be to infringe on the judicial process.

I am aware that these groups commit crimes. But how many people died in these acts? The Southern Poverty Law Center has a list from 1995 to only 2003 and it lists 60 terrorist plots by those on the right, many resulting in deaths. I agree that we have to call out those who choose to commit domestic terrorism but I also believe the facts will back me up that it is the fanatics and extremists on the right who are most likely to take their hatred to the next level - killing. I live in the city where the 3 police officers were executed in cold blood by one such extreme right wing nut armed to the teeth with assault weapons and a bullet proof vest because he thought Obama was going to take his guns away. My son in law is a police officer. I also live in the city where the man who hated women armed himself with several guns and killed 3 women and wounded 9 others at a local gym. His hatred was against women. But fill in the blank with these extemists. They hate_____________ -government -Obama -blacks -hispanics -women -gays -Muslims -immigrants -non-Christians

Laura Bush spent $1.4 million on her staff, Michelle Obama's is $1.6 million. This is just more nit-picking in my view.

I don't understand how you could be in favor of making more people eligible for a government run (socialism) health care program but be against a public option for healthcare reform. It's the same thing because many who support a public option actually would have liked medicare to become available to everyone.

Those who can afford to purchase insurance now but choose not to would be required to pay for their own insurance. Those who cannot afford to buy insurance would have more affordable options with a more affordable public option which would lower the costs of private insurance when they have to compete.

insurance right now. Why mess with that high percentage? Ever notice how the government messes with the things that the people feel are just fine and doesn't mess with the things that are failing? This is what you said. That the government doesn't mess with things that are failing. That was a criticism. But I pointed out that the government did "mess with" the failing banks, but you are against that too. You can't have it both ways.

That's what a public option would do. It would be the "caps, regulations and laws" that force private insurance to clean up their act. By competing with a non-profit public option, the private insurance companies would have to reduce premiums and obscene salaries for CEO's, trim administrative costs and overhead, reduce spending on advertising, stop spending so much money on denying claims, etc..

What choice did your employees have in getting their current plan? And if you, as an employer, can find a cheaper plan, possibly a public option, with the same or better coverage, again I don't see the downside. And the reason you have so few options now is that there isn't healthy competition among health insurance providers. In 34 states, 75% of the health insurance is provided by fewer than 5 companies. In some states it's as few as two.

The people didn't think the economy was doing fine. The banks were failing and bush started the bailouts and Obama continued them but it was only after Obama continued the bailouts that you were against that, too. So were you for the government messing with the failing (of the banks) before you were against it?

That's right - because you say it would happen, then I guess it just would. There's no speculation here on your part, is there? And to that I say - if the government can offer a better plan at a better price and the private insurance can't or won't then they should be put out of business. The government plan would be paid for by premiums, the same way that private plans are now. And it is the private health care insurance industry with ever rising premiums that is putting the burden on taxpayers. Here's what the president said: When healthcare costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing cost, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. PUT SIMPLY, OUR HEALTHCARE PROBLEM IS OUR DEFICIT PROBLEM. NOTHING ELSE COMES CLOSE. So, by allowing for competition (government plan - paid for by premiums for this non-profit option) the private insurance industry would have to clean up their act or go out of business. Right now there is no competition. Some states have only one or two insurers. They can keep premiums high, deny coverage and claims. In 34 states, 75% of the insurance business is controlled by 5 or fewer companies. Doing nothing will cause our deficit to grow. Providing competition in the insurance industry and reducing the costs of insurance, eliminating waste and fraud will help to lower the deficit.

I'm talking about killings here - MURDER - acting on the hatred. Not just walking around holding a sign. Geez!

Cigarette smoking is a choice. Those who do it, do it knowing full well the consequences. Banning products seldom works because it just creates an illegal market for the product. It's hard to be sympathetic to people who, through their reckless behavior, contribute to their own deaths. Cigarette smokers, those who ride motorcycles without helmets, those who don't wear seatbelts, etc... But most people without health insurance cannot afford health insurance or have been turned down due to a pre-existing condition or have lost their job - i.e. not through their own fault - like smoking is. Deaths from smoking is very much through their own fault. The two cannot even be equated and to make a comparison is ridiculous.