Cleo's Mom

We won two world wars, our government gave us several programs that are socialism that have helped keep the elderly out of poverty: social security and medicare. Try getting the elderly to give up these two much loved programs. I know that financially they are in trouble but that's because there are fewer wage earners paying into them and more recipients. The only solution to that is to increase payroll taxes or reduce benefits. Why do you not hear anyone proposing this? Because while the public apparently doesn't object to paying higher and higher health care premiums, they do not want increased payroll taxes. Another solution would be to make 100% of wages/earning eligible for social security taxes instead of the first $105,000. That means that almost all of us pay social security taxes on 100% of our wages but people like Bill Gates only pays it on his first $105,000. I support a bill to change this. Our government is responsible for safe working conditions in our workplace, food and drug safety, a 40 hour work week, child labor laws, government loans for students and higher education, clean water and air laws, safer cars, disease control, flu shots, medical research dollars....and the list goes on. Bill Clinton balanced the federal budget and left with a surplus but bush spent that surplus and increased the deficit to historical records, at the time, but I didn't hear all the outrage about spending then. I didn't hear cries from the right about all the borrowing from China to finance an unnecessary war in Iraq. I didn't hear anyone complaining about blank check after blank check being given to bush for this war. With little oversight. I'm still waiting to find out where the missing $18 billion went that Halliburton couldn't account for. bush was given a free pass. Not once from March 2003 until January 19, 2009 did I hear one person ask bush where he was getting the money from to fund the Iraqi war. NOT ONCE. But now we have a democratic president who is CLEANING UP BUSH'S MESS AND ADDRESSING IMPORTANT ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED BY BUSH and suddenly all the conservative right is concerned about spending. It's easy to ignore important issues, like healthcare, that need to be addressed. Then you just pass the problem on to your successor. bush did that. Obama, thankfully, isn't afraid to take the bull by the horns. This smacks of the partisan BS it is. It rings hollow and is nothing more than a smoke screen for the real issue, that I, too, have said before: PEOPLE WHO NEVER SUPPORTED OBAMA, DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM, HATE HIM, AND DON'T ACCEPT HIM AS PRESIDENT ARE NOW BASHING HIM IN HOPES THAT HE FAILS. That is the real agenda and any attempt to divert from this with this phoney outrage about spending is insulting to those of us who know the truth behind all of this.

Mine, too! :thumbup:

I agree, except that with only baby steps now it will nearly impossible to take the big steps later. The moment was supposed to be now, the stars aligned. I did my part to get the progressive people elected but they have not lived up to their part. Republicans be damned. The country voted them out. They are a regional and increasingly rightist party. I'm tired of listening to the party of no. When Obama talked of bipartisanship - let's not forget that it takes both sides and the republicans aren't cooperating.

Actually, in these polls, the majority of republicans was opposed to healthcare reform. They don't want any change. They are the defenders of the status quo.

In the same chapter it also says not to have sex with a woman who is menstrating as she is unclean. Why don't I see the religious right protesting that this is happening? It is given equal importance to all the other "thou shall nots..." in that chapter. Also, there is nothing in this passage prohibiting a woman "lying" with another woman so I am going to take that to mean that lesbian sex is okay.

The latest August polls show that the majority of Americans, and a bigger majority of democrats and independents support healthcare reform. This is a partisan issue. The republicans don't support it and never will. So, I say to the democrats that we helped put in office - vote for healthcare reform or we can just as easily vote you out of office.

All the christian religions base their teachings on the bible. The same bible. The fact that they come to different conclusions about what it says and what it means makes my point. The catholic church has biblical references and interpretations for every one of the things you take exception to. I am not defending them, because I think they got some things wrong, too. But my point is that if a major, world wide religion, with billions of members, that claims to be the one true religion because it is the only one that can be traced directly back to Jesus can get the bible wrong, then anyone can. And this is especially true of those who use the bible to support their hatred and their discriminatory views.

At least Obama is opening the records. bush refused to do so - ever. I'm still waiting to see who cheney met with to develop our energy policy. Again, he refused. So whether it is after Sept. 15 or not is not important. It's that he is taking the first, unprecedented step forward. But of course, even something this positive is met with criticism from the right.

I'm pretty sure Obama isn't mentioned in the bible, however he did say that he prayed that God would melt Obama like a salted snail. This is a man who preached to his congregation "Why I hate Obama". I assume he tells his congregation his interpretation of the bible which would have to include hate since he was preaching it. If his interpretation of God's word in the bible includes hating and praying for someone's death, I have to assume that is the wrong interpretation. If a "man of God" so to speak can get it wrong, can't you?

The above was written by republican representatives John Shadegg and Pete Hoekstra for ablursspot.blogspot.com. I wonder how much $$$ they get from the insurance industries?

What right-wing conservative site did you get this from? And by "...now even in death" - I am assuming you/they meant Ted Kennedy. He gave almost 50 years of his life to public service and was a champion for the least among us (a phrase used in the bible) and his funeral was befitting a man of his accomplishments. He never demanded royal treatment in life or death and shame on you and the authors of this article for saying so. Never mind, you don't have to answer the question. You took it verbatim from free republic.com.

The 24/7 cable news cycle is also to blame. Having to fill up all that air time creates the need to air a lot of crap. If someone famous does anything bad, they will interview everyone from the neighbor to the paper boy. The people on the street interviews are the best. These people often cannot put two coherent sentences together but are glad to play to the camera.

If what you plan to do contradicts with the word of God, it's not God who is telling you what to do. Are you admitting that someone who claims to know the word of God in the bible could get it wrong?

No. they are not happier. Medicare, Medicaid, and VA benefits do not cover all their health care benefits. If on those ins. plans, they need to take out secondary ins. to pay for what it doesn't cover. They still have to purchase insurance privately. These government run programs are going bankrupt. I heard Obama tell us that himself in a recent speech. If they're hitting the dust for lack of funds, what do you think will hapeene to Obama's national plan? This is what I mean, EVERYTHING the government runs, runs out of the funds needed to operate it. The cost of doing business the governments way is extremely expensive. For everyone they hire to run the business recieves lavish benefit plans and pensions that outlive their jobs end.And I could talk forever about how they waste money. I know you don't let facts interfere with your opinions, but polls have shown that those on medicare are happy with this plan - 60%- which is higher than those on private plans. No, medicare doesn't cover 100% of everything. No insurance policy does. There is always a deductible and co-pays. Those on medicare then have to decide if they want to pay the deductibles/co-pays or buy medigap insurance. Those currently on medicare are being paid by those current wage earners who pay into this. There are fewer wage earners per medicare recipient as time goes on. The only way to solve this is to reduce medicare benefits or raise medicare payroll taxes. Which one of these would the american people accept? I would hope that they would accept an increase in payroll taxes to the same degree that those who support private insurance are apparently happy with and accepting of increased insurance premiums.

I had a business once that wasn't doing so well and needed some financial help with. Where was my bailout? This is my point. I don't care how big your business is, the gov. has no business funding it with MY money. The government is supposed to pretect and defend us from foreign attacks, provide for infastructure and roads and highways, secure military, police and those in authority to protect the rights of others. Not be in business for itself, and spend money on every huge thing it deems nice to have. And did you start up the daycare with all your own money or did you receive a loan from the SBA - a government assisted program? When you needed financial help, did you ask for a loan from a bank? Did you ask for help? You show your naivite (sp?) when you say government money isn't involved, or shouldn't be, in private businesses. It's called corporate welfare, mainly in the area of big tax breaks. Locally, a huge Westinghouse research plant was closing in a nearby town. They were going to move out of state. This would have resulted in thousands of jobs being lost locally. Good paying, white collar jobs. So, our governor convinced them to move to another local town and gave them a huge tax break - no taxes for many years. Now, who do you think is making up for their not paying taxes? The rest of us. But it saved the jobs of these people, who own homes, buy in local stores and pay taxes, etc. So, this is government involvement in private industry. And if our governor hadn't made the tax incentive to them, another governor of another state would have. So, who is wrong in all of this? The conservative right is always about creating jobs in the private, not public, sector. Isn't the above scenario doing just that? But it took government involvement.

How could that be? Are you saying he came to a different conclusion about how to represent what God wants and what the bible says? If there is only one truth then how could his truth, a man of God, want people to pray for the death of Obama? Or is it possible for people who base their opinions on the bible to get it wrong?

Van Jones resigned. But I think because bush's administration failed to provide the proper (any?) oversight to many areas of business and enterprise that Obama is going in the other direction.

Originally Posted by pattygreen There are people who shouted down a disabled woman in a wheelchair talking at a town hall meeting about the cost of her drugs ($289/week) and how she worries about not being able to pay her taxes or afraid she would lose her home. The people shouted her down and insulted her. One man asked "The disabled have rights and I don't?". What does this have to do with spending? The plan will cost trillions! That has alot to do with spending. These people were ther to express their anger and frustration over government they are oppsed to. So, they expressed their anger about health care spending by attacking a disabled woman worried about the costs of her medication? How does that make sense? And Pres. Obama has said he won't sign a bill that will increase the deficit. Several preachers are asking for prayers for Obama's death. This is outragous, and if it's true, then they are committing a horrific sin. This does NOT represent what the rest of us promote. There will always be a few maniacs within every kind of group. Unfortunately this will be what our opponents will focus on. Baptist preacher Steven Anderson (Tempe, AZ) gave a sermon entitled: Why I Hate Barack Obama" in which he declared he was praying for Mr. Obama's death and called on God to "melt" the president like a salted snail. The next day one of his parishoners went to a town hall meeting with Obama with a bullhorn and semi-automatic assault rifle. And he was just exercising his 1st & 2nd amendment rights? Give me a break!! And this preacher defends, supports and promotes the bible you base your life on. Who got it wrong? People are showing up at Obama's events with guns strapped to them and won't answer the question about what they plan on doing with the gun. The relatively few who have shown up with their guns were demonstrating their 1st Ammendment right to do so. Many of these rights are gradually being taken away from us a little at a time. They didn't have any 'Plans' to do anything with their guns, except to show or prove their right to carry them. It was a stand on government and their attempt to take away our rights. And kind of like a "ha ha, THIS is my right!" sort of thing. In some of those 'cowboyish' states, carrying a gun in public is a common thing anyway. Where I live in Ct, you would never see that or hear about it. Please be specific about what rights have been taken away from you under Obama. Don't be vague. Under bush our right to have warrants before our phones could be tapped was taken away. The right to be charged with a crime before being incarcerated was taken away. But please list those rights that have been taken away by Obama. Parents don't want their kids to hear Obama talk about staying in school and studying because it would be an endorsement of his agenda. That's right. He wants to promote his socialistic agenda, and we don't want him to try to indoctrinate our children towards leaning towards his way of socialism and government control. Obama is going to talk to students about staying in school and studying hard. Wow! Talk about radical and socialist!!! When bush was president it was "If you criticize the president you are a traitor" and now it's "Hide your kids from the president". He has always talked about the need for more parental oversight on their children's learning and study habits - turn off the tv, spend time with them. And he's also told men to "man up" who bring children in this world - to be responsible for them. Again, WOW! What a socialist thing to say. If this message scares you then that says more about you. None of this has anything to do with budgets, the stimulus, spending or aides. The people who hated Obama before he became president and are angry that he became president have now found an outlet - which started witht the town halls. It is a mob mentality and these are the same people who are the birthers and deathers and others who are extreme in their views and intolerant of others. I didn't bring up Obama's race - you did. I can't understand why you would think that I am a bigot and a hater for any reason except for maybe you feel that I am a racist. Is it not possible to love all people yet hate the things that they do? I have no reason to 'Hate' Obama. He has done nothing personally to me. I am not a prejudiced person. I have biracial children, and family members who are black, white, and philippino, and even some who are gay. I love them all dearly. This is about his spending us into oblivion with all his actions!!! I didn't say that you were a bigot, I said you brought up Obama's race first. I didn't. And the hatred for Obama has been very evident since these town hall meetings morphed into a feeding frenzy. It is a mob mentality that has grown. Obama being hung in effigy. His face depicted like Hitler (an enormous insult to those who have been affected by the Holocaust), the nazi, communist, etc..rants, and the birthers and deathers. This is all deep seated irrational paranoia and it must be racial because none of this has anything to do with spending. Clinton supported the same agenda that Obama does currently (but he didn't have the economic mess to clean up) and you didn't see this kind of hatred with him. But if you believe that our nation is not racist, you are the only one. Really? Do we not have a black and white president? I have nothing to "get past" because what I have said is true.

Thank you, Happy Home. I agree.

There are people who shouted down a disabled woman in a wheelchair talking at a town hall meeting about the cost of her drugs ($289/week) and how she worries about not being able to pay her taxes or afraid she would lose her home. The people shouted her down and insulted her. One man asked "The disabled have rights and I don't?". What does this have to do with spending? Several preachers are asking for prayers for Obama's death. People are showing up at Obama's events with guns strapped to them and won't answer the question about what they plan on doing with the gun. Parents don't want their kids to hear Obama talk about staying in school and studying because it would be an endorsement of his agenda. None of this has anything to do with budgets, the stimulus, spending or aides. The people who hated Obama before he became president and are angry that he became president have now found an outlet - which started witht the town halls. It is a mob mentality and these are the same people who are the birthers and deathers and others who are extreme in their views and intolerant of others. I didn't bring up Obama's race - you did. But if you believe that our nation is not racist, you are the only one. I have nothing to "get past" because what I have said is true.

I didn't make prediction. I stated facts. We were losing jobs at the rate of about 700,000 jobs a month, in August it was about 250,000 jobs. Those are facts. Economists look at trends and the trend says that while we will continue to have job losses, it is slowing down.

It has a ripple effect. When roads are paved they need to buy equipment and materials from private businesses who in turn hire workers, etc.. Same with small town and big town governments. Every job is not a government job. And when people go to work, whether government or private, it helps the economy.

No, I always wanted transparency. But that didn't happen with bush. The lies were hidden, the secret wiretapping, the abuses at Gitmo, Abu Grahib, the cost of the Iraq war, showing the coffins of the dead soldiers coming home - all this was initially kept from us. After bush "won" in 2004 - then things were revealed and the truth came out but it was too late. Obama just opened the WH visitor logs so we can see who goes there - something bush refused to do. What was he hiding. Cheney's secret talks with his oil buddies that developed our energy policy?

My opinions are based on facts and doing research not listening to the hate mongers on the right (rush, glenn, fox news) who hate Obama and everything he stands for. We even have ministers praying for Obama's death. Yes, those who preach the bible praying for someone to die. Clinton didn't have the big mess to clean up that Obama did/does. He tried to get healthcare via Hillary and she was crucified by those who said it was too costly and then those same people didn't blink to give bush blank check after blank check for Iraq, never questioning the cost. If this anger is about debt, then when Clinton balanced the federal budget and left with a surplus and bush sqaundered all of that and ran up the debt - where were the town hall outrages? Where were these same people who shout down the disabled at these town hall? They were bush supporters then and Obama haters now. There was no outrage because as cheney said then "reagan proved that deficits don't matter" (and reagan and bush ran up huge deficits) - what this all proves is that DEFICITS ONLY MATTER WHEN OBAMA DOES IT. The anger about Obama getting elected is palpable and every day it gets worse. Ministers praying for his death, men wearing guns on their hips to Obama's meetings. Parents upset because he will speak to students to study hard and stay in school. People begrudging him a vacation. This is not about the debt. THIS IS ABOUT THEIR HATRED OF OBAMA. PERIOD.