Cleo's Mom

Originally Posted by pattygreen Yes, it DOES matter what past presidents did, especially bush, because the SPENDING OBAMA IS DOING NOW, NO MATTER HOW EXCESSIVE YOU BELIEVE IT TO BE, IS NECESSARY TO CLEAN UP BUSH'S MESSES. The best way to clean up someone elses spending problem and mess is to spend even more then them???? That's a great way to fix things. I would have gone with paying off Bush's spending spree. It is easy to ignore problems and protect the status quo when you benefit from the status quo - which is what bush did. He didn't address the economy until late fall when he started the bailouts of the banking industry. I didn't hear or read anyone complaining bush when he did that. that's because it wasn't on the news like the things that Obama is doing now. Is that the publics fault? It's the fault of the right-wing media run by Murdoch and Fox news. Obama then had to continue to bail out the banks so that our economy would not get any worse. I understand the outrage about this, but it was a painful solution to a problem that was created by the republicans who did away with banking regulations that would have controlled what they did to cause the economic downfall. My mantra is "regulate, baby, regulate". Now, his administration is trying to get a handle on the regulations and outrageous CEO salaries, something that if the bush administration had done, then Obama would not have to spend money to help solve this problem. Did Obama need to spend money on all the pork projects in the last stimulus bill in order to regulate CEO salaries???? No. There was no pork in the stimulus bill. You are confusing the stimulus bill with the federal budget where each congressional representative competes for federal dollars to bring back to his/her district. That is their job and what they are sent to Washington to do. Because if the banks fail, the economy fails. However, some of those bailed out banks are making a profit and repaying our government with interest. The stimulus and middle class tax cut (that 95% of wage earners got) was necessary to do just what it says - stimulate the economy. And it is working. No. It isn't. There is more unemplyment now than ever. It is working. Every town, every shovel ready project are doing things they couldn't do without the stimulus. Employment will be the last indicator to improve. Slowly but working. Had those billions of dollars not been infused into the economy we would have faced a depression and probably 20% unemployment. I disagree. You never need to spend money to get out of debt. You may have to hurt for a little while till your finances balance out, but you should never spend more. The spending wasn't to get out of debt. It wasn't debt that was the problem. It was that the economy runs on money. The banks control the money. They were failing and thus the economy would have failed and put us in a depression. When the banks don't loan money, people can't buy homes, cars and business owners can't make payroll, etc... and these things are necessary for a healthy economy. The stimulus has slowed job loss from 700,000 a month to 250,000 a month. Still a lot, but slower. Pure speculation and nonsense. You better alert the Bureau of Labor Statistics that monitors employment and unemployment that their figures are wrong. Originally Posted by pattygreen

Yes, it DOES matter what past presidents did, especially bush, because the SPENDING OBAMA IS DOING NOW, NO MATTER HOW EXCESSIVE YOU BELIEVE IT TO BE, IS NECESSARY TO CLEAN UP BUSH'S MESSES. It is easy to ignore problems and protect the status quo when you benefit from the status quo - which is what bush did. He didn't address the economy until late fall when he started the bailouts of the banking industry. I didn't hear or read anyone complaining bush when he did that. Obama then had to continue to bail out the banks so that our economy would not get any worse. I understand the outrage about this, but it was a painful solution to a problem that was created by the republicans who did away with banking regulations that would have controlled what they did to cause the economic downfall. My mantra is "regulate, baby, regulate". Now, his administration is trying to get a handle on the regulations and outrageous CEO salaries, something that if the bush administration had done, then Obama would not have to spend money to help solve this problem. Because if the banks fail, the economy fails. However, some of those bailed out banks are making a profit and repaying our government with interest. The stimulus and middle class tax cut (that 95% of wage earners got) was necessary to do just what it says - stimulate the economy. And it is working. Slowly but working. Had those billions of dollars not been infused into the economy we would have faced a depression and probably 20% unemployment. The stimulus has slowed job loss from 700,000 a month to 250,000 a month. Still a lot, but slower. And the unemployment will still go up before it comes down. But it will - AND IT WILL BE DUE TO THE STIMULUS MONEY. Healthcare is driving up the costs to the average american. It now represents about 18% of the GDP and there are many industries that have a vested interest in seeing that rise to 20 - 24% of the GDP. So, it needs to be addressed to help contain costs while offering affordable insurance to all. Reduce waste in Medicare where some providers are taking advantage of this government program. bush's trillion dollar war in Iraq was out of control. He negotiated a very lucrative deal with the pharmaceutical industry to provide medicare part D drug coverage. They got very rich on this almost $400 billion dollar plan. Very little debate or discussion. He just pushed it through Congress and signed it. No public town hall debates, no outrage, despite the fact that they lied about the cost. Said it was closer to $250 billion but when a guy in the budget office revealed that it was closer to $400 billion, he got fired. Again, very little press. But now, Obama can't even go on vacation, which he pays for himself, without a public outcry. And he can't even give a speech to students to tell them to study and stay in school without parents objecting. SO, DON'T INSULT ME, PG, BY TELLING ME THAT THIS IS ABOUT SPENDING. THIS IS ABOUT OBAMA, AND IT IS ABOUT THE ANGER THAT HE GOT ELECTED AND IS PROMOTING THE AGENDA HE RAN ON.

FULL ANSWER: The White House published the 2009 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff on its official blog on July 1, listing the title and salary of many White House office employees. A few days later, a fuss began online over the number of people who are assigned to work for the Office of First Lady and how much they earn per year. A blog post from Chicago Sun-Times reporter Lynn Sweet on July 6 put the spotlight on "What Michelle Obama’s Staffers Earn." The staff of TheLastCrusade.org, a Web site that describes itself as a place "where you can engage in the life and death struggle against the forces of Islam, apostasy, moral complacency, cultural relativity, and the New World Order," then took the information and posted a piece claiming that the first lady had hired an "unprecedented number of staffers" to "cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession." That piece was also posted on the conservative Web site CanadaFreePress.com under the byline of Dr. Paul L. Williams, who runs TheLastCrusade.org. That post has become part of a chain e-mail that some of our readers have passed on to us, and the e-mail expands upon Williams’ post, falsely claiming that some recent first ladies have had only one or three staffers. How Many? According to the 2009 White House report to Congress, there are 16 people with a title specifically indicating they work for Michelle Obama’s office. In other words, there are 16 people with "first lady" somewhere in their title, such as Jocelyn Frye, deputy assistant to the president and director of policy and projects for the first lady. The list reported by Sweet and The Last Crusade, however, includes six other staffers who do not have "first lady" in their title but are a part of the first lady’s office staff, such as Desiree Rogers, special assistant to the president and White House social secretary, and Natalie Bookey, staff assistant. We contacted Katie McCormick Lelyveld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary, to check the list’s accuracy. Lelyveld told us in an e-mail that the first lady’s current staff size is actually 24, not 22, as the chain e-mail claims. Lelyveld couldn’t provide a list of the staffers at that time. First Ladies Past The chain e-mail’s author claims that "[t]here has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life." The author claims that "even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one." But the counts for those first ladies are incorrect – and they’re way off. Stephen Plotkin, reference archivist for the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, told us in an e-mail that Jacqueline Kennedy’s office was "headed" by one person, but said that there were "at least 9 people working for Mrs. Kennedy, with the promise of a great many more" during her time at the White House. Kim Coryat, an archives technician at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, told us it can be difficult to nail down a precise count of staff considering "White House staffing for all offices ebbs and flows with time." But she said in an e-mail that White House telephone directory records indicate that Hillary Clinton had at least a staff of 13 as of October 1993; 18 as of April 1997; and 19 as of March 2000. Lelyveld said that Michelle Obama’s staff was actually no different than that of her predecessor, Laura Bush. "[W]e have exactly the same staff number as Mrs. Bush and our office organization reflects a similar staffing model, so insinuations otherwise are wrong," she said. Lelyveld said that the White House’s "personnel records indicate" that there were 24 staffers for Laura Bush at some point. We were able to verify at least 18 staffers for Laura Bush, as of June 30, 2008, via the 2008 White House staff list published in The Washington Post’s White House Watch column. Sixteen people were specifically referred to as a "first lady" staffer, and Amy Zantzinger and Dorothy Thornton served as White House social secretary and deputy social secretary, respectively. It’s possible that someone with the title of "staff assistant" was assigned to the Office of First Lady as well, as is the case with Michelle Obama’s staff. The combined annual salaries for the 22 staffers we can specifically identify as working for Michelle Obama come to $1.6 million. For the 18 we could identify as working for Laura Bush in 2008, the total is $1.4 million. Dr. Myra Gutin, a professor of communications at Rider University and a first ladies historian, says that the first lady’s role has certainly "grown and evolved" since the 1960s, but generally speaking, the first lady’s "staff numbers about 14-16." Gutin told us she recalled "some first ladies have had staffs of more than that." –D’Angelo Gore Sources Executive Office of the President. "Annual Report on White House Staff to Congress." WhiteHouse.gov. 1 Jul 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009. Sweet, Lynn. "What Michelle Obama’s Staffers Earn." PoliticsDaily.com. 6 Jul 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009. Sweet, Lynn. "More Michelle Obama staff appointments." SunTimes.com. 16 Jan 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009. "First Lady Requires More than 20 Attendants." TheLastCrusade.org. 6 Jul 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009. Froomkin, Dan. "2008 White House Office Staff List." Washington Post White House Watch Column. 24 Jul 2008, accessed 30 Jul 2009. Gutin, Myra. E-mail sent to FactCheck.org. 30 Jul 2009. Plotkin, Stephen. E-mail sent to FactCheck.org. 31 Jul 2009. Coryat, Kim. E-mail sent to FactCheck.org. 31 Jul 2009. Posted by DAngelo Gore on August 5, 2009. Tags: chain e-mail, First Lady, Michelle Obama Categories: Ask FactCheck Just so much hatred from those angry that Obama was elected and that the country voted for him that they have to spend so much time combing through every little detail to try to find something to bitch about. Big freaking deal that she has 24 staffers. We were in a recession with bush, too, and laura's staffing cost $1.4 million. I don't recall that making the press.

Well, BJean - here's a completely different topic for you to mull over. Not to mention laugh about. I just heard that the republican party is thinking of running Dick Cheney for Pres. and Sarah Palin for VP in 2012. I can only hope. That would just be like waiting for the punch lines. Darth Vader and Caribou Barbie. Their campaign poster could show them both with their shotguns. It's just too bizarre to comprehend. But it should give you a chuckle.

So true. At least for the first half of the Iraqi war, most of our soldiers thought it was because Iraq was tied to 9/11. So sad that they died for that lie perpetuated by the bush administration.

Oops. My bad.

Not true, our war with Iraq came from the inside out - from the closed chambers of Cheney & Rumsfeld who told bush what to do. Then they did a very effective job of selling it to the American people by a series of lies - first by connecting it to 9/11 (it wasn't and we weren't attacked by Iraq) and then the lies about WMD's and the imminent dangers of chemical warfare (remember how they hung Powell out there with some vial of poison to show?) and the mushroom cloud? The country and thus the American people were reeling from 9/11 and willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt - but as these lies unraveled, the people saw the Iraqi war for the big lie it was. As far as who voted for it - well the republicans made it very clear that those who voted against it would be branded unpatriotic and on the side of the terrorists. But I am so proud that Obama and the late Ted Kennedy voted against it.

And who do you think you are to presume what my spiritual enlightenment is? You have no idea about my relationship to religion or God. Or what I believe or don't believe. Please forgive me if I am wrong here, for I may be confusing you with someone else, but aren't you the one who posted "No." to a forum where I asked "Is God real?" If that wasn't you, I'm sorry. PG: No, it wasn't me. And as for bush saying God told him to go into Iraq - well, I thought by now that was common knowledge - it's been in the news. Anyway, when we go to war I want the Pentagon and military leaders and actionable intelligence, a good reason (we were attacked first, for example) and an exit strategy, among other things. Not some spiritual advice. Anyone can claim to do things in the name of God, and many do. People kill their children because they say God told them it was the only way to save them from the devil. We have a word for people who hear voices that tell them what to do. It's called: SCHIZOPHRENIA.

Kartman - if you'll click on the link in my above post, you will see how wrong PG is.

You're wrong and I'm right about what Obama said and this video proves it: Obama "not just a Christian nation" // Current bush said God told him to go into Iraq. Sounds like getting orders from God to me. And who do you think you are to presume what my spiritual enlightenment is? You have no idea about my relationship to religion or God. Or what I believe or don't believe. There are plenty of spiritual "leaders" in this country. People who profess all kinds of religion and beliefs. Plenty of places of worship, too. I don't need my government leaders to wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves, so to speak. They can practice their religion in private and get on with the business they were elected to do - and that wasn't to promote any specific religion.

This is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard. First of all, let's just assume for a minute that bush was a spiritual man who "talked to God". I would much rather have the brains of Obama running this country than some dumb ass like bush who claims to get his orders from God. That kind of statement in unprovable not to mention self-serving. bush really got his orders from cheney and rumsfeld but then he might have thought they were god, I think cheney thinks he is. Secondly, Obama said that this nation is not JUST a christian nation. Do you disagree with that? Because it's a fact. There are many religions practiced here and THAT is what our founding fathers wanted. A country where one is free to practice their religion free from persecution. The fact that they were christians when they founded this country is irrelevant to this point.

PG: You are confusing rolling back the tax cuts to the wealthy with big business. I am talking about those individual wage earners who earn $250,000+. They are the ones who benefited the most from the republican tax cuts of the last 25 years. While middle class and poor wage earners saw their incomes in terms of buying power, go down. When Mr. Richey Rich, a bean counter on Wall Street who earns $300,000, sees his tax cuts rolled back to where they were under Clinton he does NOT pass this on to anyone. He's just paying a fairer share. Social Security taxes are paid on the first $106,000 you make - which essentially is almost all wage earners in America. Which means that for most of us, we pay social security taxes on 100% of our wages. That means Bill Gates only pays social security taxes on his first $106,000. How fair is that? Everyone's wages should be taxed for social security at 100%. This change is in the works but I don't know how far it has gone. I support this. Utilities are publicly owned and supported. They have to get permission for the PUC to raise rates. They can't just do so capriciously. And we weren't headed for a recession, we were already in one, we were headed for a full blown depression and I am glad that the steps Obama took averted it. We are already getting a return on the money loaned to the banks with the bailout. They are paying us back the money with interest. The government has always played a role in the economy with interest rates set by the federal reserve, etc...so when we have pulled out of past recessions our government was involved in small or big ways.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to eat certain foods or lots of food at one time. This is how we ate for so long. It's going to take time. And there is nothing wrong with once in a while giving in to a craving and having a little of what you want. We're not monks! We're constantly surrounded by the sights and smells of food - most of which is unhealthy - full of fat, sugar and salt. But it tastes good. So we want it. No sin in that. Re-programming your eating will take time. You are doing fine. When at restaurants, just say to the waitress that you've recently had surgery and can't eat as much as you used to, but that you'll take the rest home because it is very good. Be honest with your friends, too, if you can trust them to be supportive. Tell them you can eat most healthy foods, just not in large quantities. And if fills make you feel ill, then something is wrong. Talk to your doctor about it. Good luck.

Debunking the top 5 myths of health care: Sunday Forum: Why in the world can't we figure out health care? With regard to myth #2: I waited 3 months to see my eye doctor and 3 months for a specialist for non-emergency care. I always have to wait to see specialists. I also have to wait two weeks to see my PCP if I am not having a serious problem. Even if I'm having a problem that has to be treated right away, I generally won't see him, I'll see the PA. In other words, you don't get to see him (right away) no way, no how.

You've started many threads that are opposed to Obama and his policies. Why didn't you start one about bush? Because during 2008 the unemployment was going up, the deficit was rising, the economy was tanking, gas prices were increasing, etc...But he was given a pass. Now, when Obama tries to clean up bush's mess he is criticized. Give me a break. And BTW, I am still angry about the bush administration. Obama may never be able to undo all the harm it did.

The government does pay the salaries of teachers. It's local government taxes. And state and some federal. What the private schools pay their teachers depends on how competitive they want to be to attract the best teachers. It doesn't matter if we're talking about federal tax dollars or local tax dollars. Private schools compete with public schools and flourish in urban areas.

There are many things that are socialized in our country - the military, medicare, medicaid, veteran's healthcare, schools, police and fire protection. But this hasn't stopped private schools from existing. They are doing quite well. So, public (government) competiton would not be the downfall of private insurance if they offer a good product for a reasonable price, don't discriminate or reject people, pay reasonable, not obscene wages to their CEO's, and put people before profit.

Thanks, BJean. I don't spend a lot of time on here because it is so futile sometimes. But I think because of all the coverage that Ted Kennedy's death has gotten with video of his many passionate speeches and those who have eulogized him made me remember more acutely the reasons I am a liberal democrat and not ashamed to say so. The right, who has never given the least among us one thing, has demonized the word liberal. I reject that and am proud to say it. Ted Kennedy supported universal healthcare all his political life and was a champion for the rights of people who didn't have a voice unlike those whose interests were represented by well paid lobbyists. He championed for children's health and education, the disabled, the minimum wage for workers, the family leave act and so much more. So, like many others, I will continue his battles in my small, humble way. I am president of my local democratic club and I do what I can to advance the democratic agenda. Being on this site is just a small part. Thanks again.

First of all, middle class wage earners saw a reduction in withholding taxes back in April and therefore an INCREASE in their paychecks. If they are bringing home less money it is because their healtcare premiums have risen. This was a result of Obama's keeping his promise to reduce taxes on middle America. Second - wealthy americans have seen their income rise due to the tax cuts given them by the bush administration. Obama wants to roll back the their tax cuts to what they were in the Clinton administration. I support that. Obama has a lot on his plate - a huge mess left over from the bush administration. The economy was number one. And all indications are that the stimulus is working - slowly - but working. Unemployment will be the last indicator to improve. But it's like if your basement is flooded up to the ceiling and someone comes with buckets to bail out the water to keep it from reaching your first floor living area. It helps avoid a bigger disaster but you still have a flooded basement. It will take time. I read everyday about towns that are depending on that stimulus money to keep from laying off workers or to do shovel ready projects. Obama was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't. Had he not done anything for the economy - it would have gotten much worse. And people would have blamed him. What he had done is put money into the economy to stimulate it. And he gets blamed for that. He gives middle class america a tax cut and gets no credit. Healthcare reform has to happen now. The time is right, in fact, long overdue. Obama knows that. If it seems like there it too much too soon it is because the bush administration ignored too many problems. Now, about the free enterprise. After the depression, the Glass-Steagall Act was passed that separated investment and commercial banking activities. It was believed that commercial banks took too much risk with depositors money. This act worked well for over 50 years until 3 Republicans, a republican controlled congress and a republican president (bush) changed it in 1999 with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which eliminated this act and its restrictions and paved the way for the economic disasters that happened on Wall Street last year. You might remember Phil Gramm - the one who said the american people were whining about the economy.

The way to regulate the health insurance industry is to make it compete with a plan that does not discriminate, is not profit motivated and runs with less of an administrative cost. That would be a government health care option. Frankly, I don't care if it would put the private insurance industry out of business. So what? Other countries have government run health care for all and their people are satisfied with it. And yes, you can always find anecdotal stories about so-and-so who had to wait for care, etc.. in any country and with any type of healthcare. Including and especially ours. That's not the point. If you favor competition, which all of you on the right say you do, then the private insurance industry should not be worried about competing with the government, who they claim can't run anything. Lower premiums, don't deny care, stop paying your CEO's obscene salaries and bonuses and be less profit motivated. That's what real competition is about. Health care should NOT be about maximizing profit. It should be about providing healthcare to all. Period. So, if the private insurance industry cannot compete with a government plan, so be it. I don't have a problem with that. It would be their own undoing. If the government is so untrustworthy (and remember that the government is not some abstract entity ....it is we the people...so when you use the term government - substitute "we the people".) - then why do we trust them to protect us with the military? The CIA? The FBI? I think if they can handle that, they can handle doing a chest x-ray or giving a flu shot. People on socialized medicince (medicare) are quite happy with their care. It was private, corporate america that created the economic downfall we are currently in. Their greed and corruption. Not the government. So, I have no faith in private anything. It's corporate america that is untrustworthy and we have the current economy to prove it.

I was banded in Sept. 2008 with a 4cc band. My surgeon was inexperienced and had only done 22 before mine. Unlike others who tell about how their doctor chose the band size when he went in because of their size, etc... I think mine chose mine purely for monetary reasons. He and his partner (general, not bariatric surgeons) took over the practice of a retiring bariatric surgeon. I assume that meant all the equipment and supplies. The bands have expiration dates (guaranteed sterility dates) and my band's was June 2009. So, I think he was using up old inventory before it's expiration date and before he would have to buy new ones. I don't think my size had anything to do with it. He overfilled me with the second fill (a total of 3 cc's) and then blamed me for my problems until he saw the upper GI results then unfilled me 1cc. I took all my test results, including my CD of my upper GI to another doctor for a second opinion and then left my original surgeon for him in April of this year. Best move I ever made. My new surgeon is a bariatric surgeon and he is much more experienced and helpful. I currently have 2cc, not a lot of restriction, but will not have another fill until I have another upper GI to determine if all the damage my former surgeon did is gone.

Yes, I get it. Those who oppose healthcare reform don't want any reform and that includes insurance reform. How do you think the insurance companies got so powerful? By their incredible lobbying power and huge contributions to (mainly) the republicans. It's not that they don't want government run health care - because if they didn't - they would oppose medicare, medicaid and veteran's care. But so far, I haven't seen any of the opponents have the balls to say they want to do away with grandma's medicare. And most of medicaid pays for grandma in nursing homes. Shall we throw her out in the street? The reason the opponents don't want government run healthcare - available to all - is that it would compete against the greedy (see my link) insurance companies who might just have to be less profit motivated and fairer to patients. So - now read this slowly : A GOVERNMENT HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION WOULD BE REFORM FOR THE CORRUPT INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND REIN IN SOME OF THE "CRAP" THEY DO. The government is "we the people" and we have elected representatives. We don't have any such people representing us in the private health insurance industry. We elect people to represent our interests and the people of this country spoke loudly that they wanted change: out of Iraq, healthcare for all, better education, cleaner and renewable energy,& reducing our dependence on oil, among other things. I will trust a government run health plan before I trust the greed of the private insurance industry. Profits before people is their motto, and it shows.

My port is on my right side about halfway between the bottom of my breast and my waist. I had my first mammogram (since surgery) this past Tuesday. And there was no problem. And I had breast cancer diagnosed in 2002 so I go on the days the radiologist is there and she didn't need to take any additonal pictures, either. But if the port is higher it would be best to notify the technician and doctor in case it interferes in any way.

Here's a personal account of how the insurance industry works and how IT gets between you, your doctor and your health care: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/opinion/27kristof.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=health%20care%20fit%20for%20animals&st=cse

You want a doctor and staff you can work with. It doesn't sound like these people are it. Can you check around to see if there is another doctor who will offer a second opinion? If so, take all your medical reports, test results, etc. and seek a second opinion with the option of changing doctors. Don't assume they are all a tight knit group - especially if they work for competing hospitals. Even if you don't seek a second opinion, please get copies of all your test results from pre-op until now. And get copies of your ER report. You should always see what the doctor sees. Don't put up with unacceptable care. I didn't. I changed doctors 7 months after my surgery. Best move I made. Good luck to you.