Cleo's Mom

If the tea party is legit (which everyone on here knows I don't believe) then we should see them marching with signs supporting not only financial reform for wall street but for the following to reduce that deficit that they claim to care so much about: This new Quinnipiac University poll shows the strongly populist--and traditionally Democratic--leanings of Americans when it comes to bread and butter issues. The Quinnipiac University poll found that 60 percent of Americans among both major political parties think raising income taxes on households making more than $250,000 should be a main tenet of the government's efforts to tame the deficit. More than 70 percent, including a majority of Republicans, say those making more than $1 million should pay more. But 80 percent say raising taxes on those making less than that should not be part of the government's approach. Moreover, most oppose touching Medicare and Social Security - two long-term drivers of the budget deficit over the coming decades.... Obama's 2011 budget proposal and most of his fellow Democrats favor eliminating tax breaks for individuals making more than $200,000 and for households making more than $250,000, which were enacted in 2001 and 2003. Not surprisingly, many more Democrats than Republicans back hiking taxes on those making more, though 56 percent of Republicans did support raising taxes on those making more than $1 million, the poll found. There was only a slim partisan divide, with only slightly fewer Republicans opposed to cutting the growth of the government health plan for the elderly, Medicare or Social Security, to help the deficit. The American public, even Republicans, want basic economic fairness and recognize that taxing the people who make a lot of money is a helluva lot fairer than cutting Social Security and Medicare for the rest of us. It's the basic principle Democrats have operated on for decades. If the deficit commission really wants to cut entitlements, perhaps they should consider the quasi-entitlement program defense contractors, which has been a pretty significant contributor to the bloated budget deficit in the past decade, as the Project on Defense Alternatives has shown. That, combined with some well placed tax increases, should go a long way to putting the country back on a sustainable fiscal track.

You often claim that Obama's agenda is unconstitutional (which it isn't) but if you are concerned about constitutional violations, then you should be interested in this: A federal judge ruled Wednesday that two lawyers' constitutional rights were violated when the bush administration subjected them to illegal survelliance while they worked for an Islamic charity in Oregon. All that's left for the court to decide is the amount of damages to be paid to the two lawyers and the foundation's estate. Pres. Obama criticized his predecessor's use of the state secrets priviledge to shield the government from liability for domestic surveillance without first getting a warrant, which requires that a judge be shown that there is probable cause to suspect wrongdoing. So, you see, bush actually did violate the constitution. Warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional.

Your arguements are all based on emotion, opinion and predictions, not fact: "It's a government take over" "Obama wants to control the healthcare of everyone" "It will eventually control decisions about people's bodies" "It will increase the deficit" Your arguments just don't have any basis. It's just a "just you wait" kind of thing, lacking merit. The following refutes the old "it's unconstitutional": : Congress has framed the insurance mandate as a tax, which it has well-established powers to create, and the legislative branch's sweeping authority to regulate the economy has been clear since the 1930s. "The attack on this bill is not merely an attack on the substance of this particular measure," said Jack Balkin, of Yale University. "It's also a challenge to understandings that come with the New Deal." Sanford Levinson, of the University of Texas Law School, said Americans who choose not to purchase health insurance can pay a fine. Congress, he said, clearly has the authority to levy taxes and fines. "As a technical matter, it's been set up as a tax," Levinson said of penalties. "The argument about constitutionality is, if not frivolous, close to it." Mark Tushnet, of Harvard University, said the central premise relied upon by the law's opponents — that Americans who choose not to have insurance aren't involving themselves in the nation's commerce — is flawed. "The failure to have health insurance doesn't mean the person won't be consuming health services," Tushnet said. Once they receive care, he said, they have become involved in commerce and are subject to the federal government's regulation. There also is some question as to whether courts could hear challenges now, because the requirement to purchase insurance doesn't become effective until 2014. Courts typically require plaintiffs to show some sort of current injury for which redress is sought.

When people cheer at Hannity's mention of domestic terrorist timothy mcveigh, it isn't a great leap to conclude that THEIR mindset is such that they want people (president?) in the government dead.

Here is the fallacy of this argument. With this healthcare bill, the government is NOT telling you what you can and can't do with your body with regard to health. What they are saying to the UNINSURED: You must buy insurance. If you can afford it, you will pay the premiums. If not, there will be subsidies. And the reason for this is this: If you give the uninsured the choice to buy or not to buy health insurance, only the sick will buy it. And that will not allow the pool of people to be large enough to balance the risk. That is how it works for those of us with healthcare (usually through our employers) now. Those of us who are healthy pay for the healthcare of those who are sick, even though both have healthcare. You can't just have a pool of sick people. You worry so much about the poor insurance industry - what do you think would happen then?

More evidence that those on the right condone violence: HANNITY: When you think about the vast majorities that they have in Congress and they had to bribe, backroom deals, corruption, that’s all because the tea party movement, the people — all these Tim McVeigh wannabes here. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) Tim McVeigh's handywork: from dailykos

RNC rejects joint "civility" statement: The Republican National Committee has rejected a proposal from its Democratic counterpart to sign a joint “civility” statement, POLITICO has learned. Various members of the DNC — including Chairman Tim Kaine, Executive Director Jen O’Malley Dillon and Communications Director Brad Woodhouse — contacted their respective RNC counterparts this week in hopes of getting RNC Chairman Michael Steele to co-sign a document with Kaine that, in part, called for “elected officials of both parties to set an example of the civility we want to see in our citizenry.” “We also call on all Americans to respect differences of opinion, to refrain from inappropriate forms of intimidation, to reject violence and vandalism, and to scale back rhetoric that might reasonably be misinterpreted by those prone to such behavior,” read the proposed joint statement, which came at the end of a week that saw acts of vandalism and threats of violence directed at members of Congress from both parties, but mostly aimed at Democrats who voted yes on the health care bill. Woodhouse told POLITICO that the DNC is “disappointed” that the RNC would not agree to a statement that “would carry a lot weight symbolically.” “It’s very disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that Chairman Steele, who authored a fundraising presentation that depicted the president as the Joker, the speaker of the House as Cruella de Vil, raised money online showing the speaker on fire and said she should be put before a firing squad would refuse to do a joint statement with Chairman Kaine to ratchet down the rhetoric and condemn the violence and threats which Republican supporters have engaged in since the passage of health reform,” Woodhouse said. “Chairman Steele’s own overheated rhetoric and the Republican Party’s fear tactics have contributed to an environment of anger and frustration that is unhealthy and counterproductive to our political dialogue,” he added. “Rather than take responsibility for their own actions, Chairman Steele not only refused the good-faith offer of issuing a joint statement, he then sent his spokesperson out to go on the attack in a breathtaking display of chutzpah and hypocrisy. Chairman Kaine and Democrats will continue to work towards a civil and responsible debate on the issues of the day even as Republicans continue to be pulled farther and farther towards the radical extreme.” Their unwillingness to sign this statement implies that they condone this extremist behavior. Why am I not surprised?

The HC bill is not a handout. It is paid for. Some, who qualify for medicaid, will get free healthcare. The rest is paid for from taxes on cadillac plans, or reducing fraud and waste in medicare (about $500 billion). Those who currently don't have insurance and can afford it will be paying for their premiums. Those who don't have insurance and can't afford it will get subsidies depending on their income. Those who have healthcare can keep their plan. It really doesn't affect them except about pre-existing conditions and being dropped if sick and allowing children on their plan until 26. Again, please write this down somewhere. And you can continue to ignore the CBO and spout emotional rhetoric about this HC bill and how it's going to bankrupt our children, etc....because you have nothing else.

Will you please write this down somewhere so I don't have to keep repeating it. :thumbup: The tax on cadillac healthcare plans and the elimination of $500 billion in waste, fraud and overpayment to doctors (some get 150% of costs) in Medicare.

As usual, PG, you have a black & white and one size fits all view of this country. If you could do it then everyone and anyone can do it. You don't allow for personal circumstances or other things that might impact a person's life. It's all or nothing with you. And this view shows a lack of maturity and the ability to understand complex issues and therefore just respond with an emotional view.

Federal money goes into highway and roads. And you said you didn't want anything from your government. You didn't limit it to "handouts" as you call them. The fact that your employer has to pay you a minimum wage or the place that you work in is safe is a result of federal laws. OSHA, among others. As for handouts, I would like to know which ones you (and others on these boards) would eliminate: medicaid to pay for nursing home care? (huge part of federal "handouts"- oh, I know- as has been suggested on here- we adult children are supposed to quit our jobs and provided 24/7 highly skilled nursing care to our elderly parents in our homes and just use their SS checks for this) subsidies for home heating oil for those who can't afford it (mostly elderly and rural) food stamps (that help to feed children) subsidized school Breakfast and lunch programs (again to feed poor children) rent subsidies that are used to help house the poor Keep in mind that most subsidies are given to single parents, the elderly and the disabled. There are income and other qualifications.

Show me anywhere where someone said you would get healthcare for free with this bill. Yes, the qualifications for medicaid will be such that more will qualify, but other than that, I have not heard anyone promote this HC bill as providing free healthcare. You will still have to pay premiums to purchase healthcare insurance, but if your income is such that you qualify, there will be a government subsidy. Just like there will be a 35% tax credit (rising to 50% in 2014) to small businesses to help them pay for healthcare for their employees.

Those who attacked us on 9/11 came from Afghanistan, not Iraq, so while I understand why people don't support either war, at least the one in Afghanistan makes sense from a defensive viewpoint.

Wrong, again, as usual. Obama is on record as having been against the war in Iraq. He is not the one who started it but he will be the one to end it. Obviously you don't know anything about the logistics of removing troops from a country and what it involves. :smile2: Had Obama been president instead of bush (I can only wish!!) we wouldn't be in Iraq and he wouldn't have blown the chance to catch bin laden like bush did. As for letting soldiers die - well the blood of those who died in the needless war in Iraq is on the hands of bush, not Pres. Obama. Don't try to rewrite history.

Republican definitions 101: tyranny: When a democrat wins by a big majority power grab: When the democrats have the majorities in the house and senate and use it. Can you imagine the nerve! manipulation & backroom deal: using the tactics used by republicans but is wrong now disenfranchising of constituents: use rasmussen polls the subversion of the Constitution: when all else fails, use this lie (add socialism if necessary) outright disregard of the rule of law: we (republicans) lost.

Oops! typo - now corrected.:frown:

He is pulling the troops out of Iraq. But he wants to be as responsible pulling out as bush was irresponsible putting them in. It takes some time, but by Aug. 2011, they should be out. The Marines are already.

Limited interest rate hikes: Interest rate hikes on existing balances would be allowed only under limited conditions, such as when a promotional rate ends, there is a variable rate or if the cardholder makes a late payment. Interest rates on new transactions can increase only after the first year. Significant changes in terms on accounts cannot occur without 45 days' advance notice of the change. Sounds like your credit card company is trying to pull a fast one on you.

And we will remember the hypocrisy of the party of no that voted against the stimulus while taking credit for it to their constituents We will remember how well the RNC was a steward of their own money when an employee used almost $2000 of donator's money to visit a strip/bondage club. We will remember the sex scandals of the party who claims the high ground on morality. We will remember those who would continue to die each year from the lack of healthcare the republicans would still continue to deny them. We will remember their lies about healthcare and see them fall apart one by one as the provisions of the bill unfold. We will remember the republicans who stood with those in the tea party while same was spitting on and yelling to black representatives. We will remember those republicans who stood with the tea party when they published the addresses of democrats online and one of their brother's had the gas line cut at his home. We will remember how the democrats took the sinking economy and turned it around and by every economist's analysis is improving. We will remember that most of the deficit we now have was inherited from bush for his tax cuts for the rich, two wars and big giveaway to pharma, all unfunded. We will remember the shocking lack of decorum when a republican member of congress yelled "you lie" to our Commander in Chief at a state of the union and another yelled "baby killer" to an anti-abortion democrat. We will remember that the democratic party is the party of yes, we can (and yes, we did) while the republican party is the party of hell, no. I will do my part to make sure that people remember.

First of all, Pres. Obama lowered taxes for 95% of working Americans. So, if you are a working person, that's you. Second - You might not "want" anything from the government but I assure you that you take advantage of all the things the government does for this country whether you are aware of it or not. Have you ever worked at a minimum wage job? There are workplace safety laws where you work. The roads you travel on. The police and fire who protect you, etc...

Where did I say I wanted entitlements for everyone, or that everyone should have whatever they want or get free stuff in the pursuit of happiness or that I wanted the lazy to have these things? There is tremendous poverty in this country and many who recieve some type of aid are the working poor. They don't qualify for welfare but they might qualify for other government subsidies on maybe heating oil or rent, etc. I don't look at this issue as a one size fits all. Everyone on aid should just work harder. Eureka! That's is. Just work harder and you can make it. Everyone's circumstance is different. There are different barriers. What I am opposed to is my tax money being used to supplement corporate greed in the form of corporate welfare. They take all the government handouts and tax breaks and then move jobs overseas. The CEO's negotiate contracts and retire with golden parachutes while fighting hard to keep employees from negotiating contracts. But everyone loves to single out the welfare moms who have babies as opposed to the lying, cheating, CEO's who take the money and run.

The same part that says that corporations can receive government handouts (corporate welfare, tax breaks and bailouts).

So you find the color red obnoxious or is it the content? Because I feel the same way about your posts. You support corporate welfare and stand with wall street. You oppose welfare for the least among us and stand against main street. You, like PG, paint all of those who receive any kind of assistance with one brush (something she hates when she claims we do it with the tea partiers) - they are all slack-ass, lazy bums who would rather live off government assistance than get a job. If you look at who receives government aid you will see that many are single moms, the elderly, the disabled. But hey, let's just eliminate all aid, throw them out on the street and maybe die, because like PG said - lots of people die for all kinds of reason we can't control. We could just call them collateral damage in a capitalistic country.

The government has the right to regulate commerce. Plus these corporations have their hands out (lobbyists) for all kinds of corporate welfare. So if our tax money is used in any way to help them, then that gives us taxpayers the right to regulate.

Actually, the healthcare bill is not deficit neutral. The CBO has said that it will LOWER the deficit over 10-20 years. Of course, I know there are those who reject the CBO when it doesn't support their delusions. These are the people who don't believe bush turned a surplus into a deficit with two unfunded tax cuts to the rich, two unfunded wars (one unnecessary) and a big unfunded giveaway to pharma. ALL OF THOSE BILLS DID ADD TO THE DEFICIT BUT SOMEHOW THEY WERE OKAY WHILE A DEFICIT REDUCING HEALTHCARE BILL IS THE PROBLEM? Wow, talk about convuluted thinking!! It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic (and desperate). And if we would have allowed a medicare buy in for all, then we could have eliminated that whole employer/healthcare connection. And that would have provided comfort to all those on here who worry so much about big corporate america.