Cleo's Mom

Originally Posted by peaches9 Look around the World. Of the 10 biggest democracies in the WORLD ...ALL have publicly funded HealthCare (for everyone) the U.S. is the only country that dosn`t??? WTF?? And how is that working for them?, because all I hear about is how bad it is and how high their taxes are to pay for it.That's because that's all you want to hear. Most people who live in a country with universal healthcare like it. No plan is perfect but they are just incredulous that a wealthy country like ours allows people to die without health insurance. Isnt`it a Christian value to` Love our Neighbor`` like ourselves? Ask yourself the question, if Jesus were here and offering suggestions... would he not agree that the wealthier amoung us put a little more in the plate so that even the poorest amoungst us would have basic health coverage?? Jesus never advocated for socialism. As a matter of fact, He said "Those who will not work, will not eat." and He said, "the poor we will have with us always."There is plenty in the bible about helping the least among us. And if you believe that it only means neighbor to neighbor and not the government - then none of the other things that you say the bible is against (abortion, homosexuality). should be interfered with (i.e. no laws against) by the government, either. You can't have it both ways. I believe that we all have the right to do as we please with the money we earn. Whether anyone gives it to help the poor or not is up to the individual who earned it, NOT the government. The government, through our representation, most certainly DOES have the right to set where tax dollars go. That's the kind of government we have. This is the whole point of the anger over the government dictating the peoples decision making.That's why you elect congressmen and senators. You contact them about decision making. The government is us, it is you and me - something I keep reminding you. It's not about being generous to those who don't have much, it's about freedom and control and who has it... the government or the people.Again, Civics 101: government collects taxes and then dispenses them to programs and states. Your voice is your vote and your rep. I believe that Jesus would suggest to people to be generous with what the Father has given them, and help those who need it, but he wouldn't make it a law.He said render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's...that was the law then. He would tell people that if you don't have Health Ins., and you want it, then work at getting a job that will pay you more or give you the benefits.Really? He would say that? Would he tell the blind man or the cripple - sorry I can't help you - get a job and get health insurance? Jesus loves charity, but he hates stealing, even if the goods you stole went to a worthy cause. Health Ins. is NOT a "right".It absolutely is a right. It's one of the first rights we have after we're born - the right to receive health care that could prolong or improve our life or keep us from dying. It's a priviledge for those who can afford to buy it. It is not a good thing to go without, so people should make it their goal in life to achieve HI, just like they make it a goal in life to own a house or anything else of value.People lose their health insurance when they lose their jobs or when insurance companies drop them when they become sick or they can't get it due to a pre-existing condition - but I guess it was their goal to lose their job, or get sick. Too bad. What idiots they were! I would suggest skipping the new car payment and opt for HI instead. Buy a used car at a reasonable price instead of that new one with a monthly payment. I would suggest canceling cable, phone service and internet service in favor of HI. I would suggest that the cell phone get shut off and that the dinners eating out should end if you need to purchaser HI.Yes, why didn't the 34 million without insurance, many for the reasons I listed above think of these things? Wow, in addition to living beyond their means with the new car, cable, eating out, etc..they must be incredibly stupid. Perhaps a money making endeavor for the right would be to hold classes for these people and give them these suggestions. Nothing too expensive, just some classes at the local community college - maybe entitled: "No Health Insurance but driving a new car?" or "Watching cable but can't see a doc?" or "Eating out but no coverage for your diabetes?" But to suggest that others should foot the bill for you is maddeningly wrong, and unconstitutional. Universal health care is not socialist or communist... what are you so afraid of? Sharing????? You already consider EDUCATION to be a universal right in the U.S. and have your public school program, so you are already doing and acting like Socialists( your term not mine) I personally do not feel that education should be paid for by everyone. Only those who have children in public school should foot that bill.Whether or not we have children we all have a vested interest in having an educated populace. It's part of a civilzed society. I Home school my children and pay for all of their books and school materials myself. I do not approve of federal government paying for college for people either. Why should I have to pay for your further education so you could go out and earn big bucks? I can't even pay for my own children to go to college, but my taxes have to pay for yours? So is Obama doing a good job so far? HELL YES:smile2:

Tea Party Vandalism - reflective of their extremist and whacko ideas (and stupidity): Editor: Steve Kornacki Friday, May 14, 2010 23:15 ET Joan Walsh Maine Tea Party: Worse than you think State GOP apologizes after conventioneers vandalize an eighth grade classroom By Joan Walsh Tea Party defenders like to accuse Tea Party critics of focusing on a tiny minority of racist, crazy or potentially violent freaks, and ignoring the vast majority of sensible, respectful law abiding folk who just support smaller government. Why, just the other day, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal pointed to the Tea Party group that played by the rules and took over the Maine GOP's convention, to push lovely and constructive Tea Party ideas into the party's platform, as an example of the productive role the movement plays. Of course, a day later I wrote about how many crackpot ideas they got into Maine's constitution. But hey, one person's crackpot ideas are another person's political brilliance. I get that. Is vandalism likewise in the eye of the beholder? I'm not so sure. Thanks to Think Progress, I learned Friday that their ideas weren't all that was crazy about the Maine Tea Partiers. The state GOP just apologized to Portland's King Middle School, because conventioneers – who gathered at the Expo, but used the middle school for caucusing – unbelievably, vandalized an eighth-grade classroom. Relying on reports in the Portland Press Herald, Think Progress describes what the Tea Party caucusers did to eighth-grade teacher Paul Clifford's class: – For seven years, Clifford has had “a collage-type poster depicting the history of the U.S. labor movement” on his classroom door. He uses it “to teach his students how to incorporate collages into their annual project on Norman Rockwell’s historic ‘Four Freedoms’ illustrations.” When Clifford returned to his classroom on Monday, after the GOP caucuses, the poster was gone; in its place was a sticker reading, “Working People Vote Republican.” – Republicans opened a “closed cardboard box they found near Clifford’s desk” and later objected to the fact that it contained copies of the U.S. Constitution donated to the school by the American Civil Liberties Union. – After the caucuses, “rank-and-file Republicans who were upset by what they said they had seen in Clifford’s classroom” began calling the school, objecting to student art they had seen and a sticker on a filing cabinet reading “People for the American Way — Fight the Right.” When Clifford got to work and saw the poster had been replaced by the "Working People Vote Republican" sticker, at first he laughed, he told the Portland Press Herald, thinking, "'All right, that's funny, But then I go inside my room thinking the poster will be on my desk – and it isn't. And so now I'm like, 'You know what? This is baloney!"' Clifford started trying to get his poster back, but meanwhile, Tea Partiers were calling the school to protest what they found in Clifford's classroom. Never mind that Norman Rockwell was once synonymous with mainstream American values. Never mind that the "Four Freedoms," as articulated by Franklin D. Roosevelt in his 1941 State of the Union speech (as what became known as World War II raged on) are enshrined on a cherished monument in Washington D.C. Here's what Roosevelt actually said in his famous speech: In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want--which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants--everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world. That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb. Sadly, you can see what the Tea Partiers, and too many Republicans, would find objectionable: Freedom from want and freedom from fear. Because most of them believe in want and fear, as necessary to animate the corporate national security regime. (Sadly, too many Democrats seem to support that too.) And of course, the Republican right objects to the "freedom of every person to worship God in his own way," so a whole lot of the GOP is against three out of four freedoms. So much for the party of freedom and liberty. True patriots would likely rise up against the state propagation of want and fear, but that's really not what the Tea Party is about. Whatever. It's not my cup of tea. This is America, they're entitled to their beliefs. What I can't see is how anyone would defend trashing a public school classroom to symbolize their objections to whatever they believed was going on there. And yet the Press Herald received email from Tea Party activists defending what happened (even as the Maine GOP, to its credit, apologized to the students and teachers of King Middle School.) Clifford's students quickly responded. Simon Johnson, a graduate of Clifford’s eighth-grade class blogged: I am an unapologetic graduate of Paul Clifford’s eighth grade English class at King Middle School. I participated in the “Four Freedoms” expedition, and I made a poster decrying war quite similar to the one with which the Republicans took issue. I am not brainwashed, I am not a puppet, I am not anti-American or anti-religious, and I am certainly not stupid. Paul Clifford’s class taught me to think critically, to deductively reason and, if anything, to appreciate America for all the freedoms with which I am ensured on a daily basis. Clearly, the Knox County Republicans — who took a cherished, pro-Labor poster from Clifford’s room and who now are making slanderous and uninformed claims about Clifford — have a different agenda. Eighth-grader Lilly O'Leary emailed the Press-Herald: "I am not being brainwashed...I am being told that I have the right to my own opinion." She added, "These people were adults and they were acting very immaturely." But hey, the Tea Partiers are the best of American values and the future of the Republican Party, Lilly! James Taranto of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal vouches for them. Get with the program! Lilly O'Leary and Simon Johnson are patriots. The Tea Party cowards who vandalized an eighth-grade classroom are not. I guess this vandalism is also reflective of their making statements based on morals (sins) and being more intelligent than liberals.

You referred to it as STEALING when tax money is collected and spent on programs that you don't agree with. And if you agree with how the tax money is spent then it's not stealing. And that opinion is just plain stupid.

Oh, boy Leroyspuds - you're in for a whole bible quoting, bash the poor justifying yap session. Be prepared.

Then I'm sure you'll find the zany antics of bush hilarious!! Here he is looking for weapons of mass destruction in the oval office. "They must be here somewhere" he says. SIDE SPLITTING

So, in other words, when your tax dollars go to things you oppose, then it's stealing. When your tax dollars go to things you support, like the Iraqi war, then it's not. Typical convuluted conservative thinking and you call me dense?

Like anyone cares about what some actor who's been dead almost 30 years has to "say" about anything. Maybe he's channeling saint ronnie or charleston heston. :redface:

Even Republican defense secretary Robert Gates is calling for reductions in Pentagon spending. That says something about how bloated it is. But of course, when it comes to spending the neocons here and elsewhere continue to yap about the social support system we have and how we should cut spending there. Cut heating oil subsidies to the elderly or WIC to the single mom, etc.. The poor are easy targets. The big corporations that benefit from cushy government military contracts are not. They have well paid lobbyists and the record speaks for itself.

Liberals and Atheists are more intelligent than conservatives according to this study published in Social Psychology Quarterly in March 2010: William F. Buckley was a Catholic and a staunch Conservative, and though many educated people found his attitudes annoying, he was clearly a brilliantly intelligent fellow. Statistically speaking, though, it’s a lot easier to find someone like Richard Dawkins or E.O. Wilson – brilliant folks who espouse ideas atheistic or liberal. Satoshi Kanazawa, who seems to enjoy stirring things up, has posted a couple of blog entries on this topic, complete with graphs suggesting that people who say they are “not at all religious” have about 6 IQ points on those who say they are “very religious,” and that those who are “very liberal” have an average of about 12 IQ points over those who are “very conservative.”

You're also confusing your religious propaganda with fear mongering. Sometimes they overlap, but what I am referring to is the little old lady who thinks she'll be put in front of a death panel (courtesy of palin lies) or have her medicare taken away. Or the person who thinks their taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. Or the person who thinks they will no longer be able to see their own doctor, the government will tell them who they can see (right now it's the insurance companies who tell them). There is plenty of fear mongering going on from the right. Remember the mushroom cloud as a reason to invade Iraq? Or if bush wasn't reelected in 2004 we would be attacked again (courtesy of cheney - daughter liz has now taken up the torch for daddy). The terror level was elevated right before the 2004 elections. Fear mongering.

I was trying to be fair and say that there are different opinions about the constitutionality of this law and the courts will decide. I didn't expect sarcasm from you, but I guess I was wrong.

Fearmongering by saying that the healthcare bill would provide federal tax dollars for abortions: The Abortion Issue April 1, 2010 Q: What are the facts regarding the new health insurance law’s federal funding for abortion, or lack of it? A: The law says individuals who get federal subsidy dollars must use their private money to pay for coverage of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Claims that the new law will lead to a large increase in the number of abortions lack support. Strictly speaking, the new law does not provide direct federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother — the same rules that now apply to Medicaid coverage for low-income persons and to the insurance available to federal workers and military families. In fact, the new law states specifically that federal funds are not to be used for coverage of any other kinds of abortions, and that only premium dollars paid by individuals out of their own pockets may be used to pay for coverage of other kinds of abortions.

Falsehoods About Health Care Big myths about the current debate August 14, 2009 . Analysis False: Government Will Decide What Care I Get (a.k.a. they won’t give grandma a hip replacement) This untrue claim has its roots in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus bill), which called for the creation of a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The council is charged with supporting and coordinating research that the government has been funding for years into which treatments work best, and in some cases, are most cost-effective. Supporters of this type of research say it can provide valuable information to doctors, improving care and also lowering cost. Betsy McCaughey, a former Republican lieutenant governor of New York (and now a professing Democrat), wrote in an opinion piece that the government would actually tell doctors what procedures they could and couldn’t perform. The claim took off from there, popping up in chain e-mails and Republican press conferences. It’s not true. The legislation specifically says that the council can’t issue requirements or guidelines on treatment or insurance benefits: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 : Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer. … None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations made by the Council shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment. As for the health care bills themselves, the House’s H.R. 3200 sets up a center to conduct and gather such research within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, an entity the CBO called “the most prominent federal agency supporting various types of research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments." Like the stimulus legislation, the bill states that: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.’’ The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill (not yet released in its entirety) calls for a similar center that “will promote health outcomes research and evaluation that enables patients and providers to identify which therapies work best for most people and to effectively identify where more personalized approaches to care are necessary for others,” according to the summary of the bill. This claim also stems from a fear that the U.S. will institute a system like that of the U.K., where the government provides and pays for health care. But none of the bills now being debated in Congress call for such a system, and the president has said he doesn’t want nationalized or single-payer health care, as we’ve said several times. For more, see: "Doctor’s Orders?" Feb. 20 "Government-Run Health Care?" April 30 False: Private Insurance Will Be Illegal In July, Investor’s Business Daily published an editorial in which it claimed that H.R. 3200 would make private insurance illegal. But IBD was mistaken. It was citing the part of the bill that ensures people with individually purchased coverage don’t have to give up that coverage unless they want to. Under the House bill, people who want to buy new individual, nongroup coverage will have to purchase it through a new health insurance exchange. They can still buy private insurance – the exchange, in fact, would offer a range of private plans, in addition to a new federal health insurance option. However, those who were already buying their own insurance before the bill went into effect – about 14 million Americans – will have their plans grandfathered in. The part of the bill IBD cites doesn’t forbid insurers from issuing new plans. It says that new individual plans will not be considered grandfathered, and will have to be purchased through the exchange. "Private Insurance Not Outlawed" Aug. 13 False: The House Bill Requires Suicide Counseling This claim is nonsense. In an appearance on former Sen. Fred Thompson’s radio show, McCaughey also enthusiastically pushed the bogus claim that the House bill will require seniors to have regular counseling sessions on how to end their lives: McCaughey, July 16: The Congress would make it mandatory … that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care … all to do what’s in society’s best interest … and cut your life short. This is a misrepresentation. What the bill actually provides for is voluntary Medicare-funded end-of-life counseling. In other words, if seniors choose to make advance decisions about the type of care and treatments they wish to receive at the end of their lives, Medicare will pay for them to sit down with their doctor and discuss their preferences. There is no requirement to attend regular sessions, and there is absolutely no provision encouraging euthanasia. Of course, seniors who talk to their doctors about end-of-life care might well choose to discuss what types of life-saving treatment they wish to refuse. That choice has been federally guaranteed for almost 20 years. Doctor-assisted suicide, on the other hand, is legal in only three states, making it even more unlikely to be a major part of the federal health plan. Clarification, Aug. 18: We initially wrote that "euthanasia" was legal in three states. That term is often used to refer to "doctor-assisted suicide," but it has much broader implications than that. We’ve modified the sentence above accordingly. "False Euthanasia Claims," July 29 False: Medicare Benefits Will Be Slashed The claim that Obama and Congress are cutting seniors’ Medicare benefits to pay for the health care overhaul is outright false, though that doesn’t keep it from being repeated ad infinitum. The truth is that the pending House bill extracts $500 billion from projected Medicare spending over 10 years, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, by doing such things as trimming projected increases in the program’s payments for medical services, not including physicians. Increases in other areas, such as payments to doctors, bring the net savings down to less than half that amount. But none of the predicted savings – or cuts, depending on one’s perspective – come from reducing current or future benefits for seniors. The president has promised repeatedly that benefit levels won’t be reduced, reiterating the point recently in Portsmouth, N.H.: Obama, Aug. 11: Another myth that we’ve been hearing about is this notion that somehow we’re going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not. Is he wrong? Not according to AARP, by far the nation’s largest organization representing the over-50 population. In a "Myths vs. Facts" rundown, AARP says: AARP: Fact: None of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services. To be sure, Obama hasn’t always thought that Medicare "savings" could be accomplished without actual cuts in benefits. Last fall, his campaign ran two television ads accusing Sen. John McCain of wanting “a 22 percent cut in [Medicare] benefits.” The basis for the ads was a newspaper article in which a McCain aide said the Arizona Republican would cut Medicare costs. But the aide said nothing about cutting benefits, in fact quite the contrary. We called the claim "false" when Obama made it against McCain, and it’s still false now when Obama’s critics are making the same accusation against him. False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered One Republican congressman issued a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare," and we’ve been peppered with queries about similar claims. They’re not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage: H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. Also, under current law, those in the country illegally don’t qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don’t offer it. "Misleading GOP Health Care Claims" July 23 All fear mongering falsehoods started by, believed by and spread by those anti-Obama haters on the right - has nothing to do with sin.

I have posted elsewhere opinions by scholars and constitutional experts about this law. It will be decided in the courts. It apprears that most experts think it's unconstitutional but I'm sure there are those who think it is: Law Profs On Arizona Immigration Bill: It’s Unconstitutional By Amir Efrati By now you may have heard about a controversial immigration law passed in Arizona that makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. The law grants police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal. The measure was criticized Friday by President Barack Obama, who asked the Justice Department to research the law. It sounded to the Law Blog like we were heading toward a big federalism showdown. So we turned to Karl Manheim of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Irvine Law to pregame it for us. Their response: the law is DOA. The Arizona law appears to be “facially unconstitutional,” Manheim said. “States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.” States have long attempted to regulate immigration and in some instances the federal government successfully challenged state laws in court, including in the 1800s, Manheim said. But federal governments often stay out of the fight. In 1994, for example, California voters passed a law designed to deny social services to undocumented aliens. The law was challenged by private litigants and struck down by a federal court. Manheim said the Obama Administration, which is in the midst of trying to pass a federal immigration reform law, would likely rely on private litigants to challenge the controversial Arizona law. Challenging the law directly “might create a political conflict” for the administration, he said. If private litigants sue Arizona over the new law, the Justice Department also could file a so-called friend-of-the-court brief in support of the challenge, he said. And if everyone was supposed to post in black, why do you suppose they offer color choices? Hmmm. I am pro-choice, after all. You betcha. :smile2:

My stance on issues has been quite clear on these boards. But if you believe what is constitutional should be determined by a poll of Americans then that is just another example of the extreme thinking of the neocons and why we need to protect our country and constitution from them.

Over 77 Percent Of All Arizonans Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform Since Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) signed SB-1070 into law last month, polls have have shown that 52 percent of Arizona voters continue supporting the drastic — and likely unconstitutional — immigration law. However, a poll released today by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and National Council of La Raza (NCLR) shows that Arizonans overwhelmingly support action on the federal level in the form of comprehensive immigration reform and, if given the choice, prefer it over both increased border security and SB-1070: The results reflect polling at the national level as well. While a slim majority of Americans support Arizona’s immigration law, an overwhelming majority — across party lines — support comprehensive immigration reform. More specifically, a recent CBS/NY Times poll shows that 57 percent of all Americans believe immigration laws should be set by the federal government and 64 percent support some sort of legal status for undocumented immigrants already living in the country. A Univision/Associated Press poll which was also released today confirms those results and also shows that, amongst Latinos, 86 percent favor a “legal way for illegal immigrants already in the United States to become U.S. citizens.” Ultimately, Americans are fed up with the nation’s broken immigration system. Only 17 percent of Americans believe the federal government is doing all it can do on the issue while 78 percent believe it could be doing more. Support for SB-1070 is undoubtedly a manifestation of widespread frustration. However, the fact that the majority of Americans also support comprehensive immigration reform shows that there are two ways forward on the issue: 1) local legislative efforts that challenge the Constitution and turn entire regions into police states, or 2) a comprehensive approach that doesn’t just secure the border, but also turns undocumented immigrants who meet certain requirements into productive citizens and taxpayers who could contribute trillions of dollars to our national GDP.

I don't find the majority of Americans to be well educated in matters of politics, our government or our constitution. Therefore, that makes them vulnerable to fear-mongering, which the neocons have perfected as a technique. They used it with healthcare, they use it with gays, they use it with a woman's right to choose, and the list goes on. I continue to work politically to inform and educate people and elect democrats whose agenda I support. And I will work to prevent our country from being taken over by the extremist agenda of the right. Just because the majority of Americans support this doesn't make it constitutional. I'm sure there was a time in this country (and probably not that long ago) where the majority of americans supported segregation.

Very funny. Keep them coming. :w00t:

Of course not, not when their numbers don't support your view and opinions. You'd be quoting them well enough if they did. A chart that speaks for itself. bush policies has a bigger impact. Washington Post.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute Once again, an opinion, not the CBO report. And you can keep cutting and pasting all these OPINIONS, but when congress (democrats and republicans) want a bill scored they go to the CBO, not Doug Holtz-Eakin, or the American Action Forum or Americans for Tax Reform. Again, I will stick with the CBO and you can go on all these neocon websites.