Cleo's Mom

Republicans and smaller government: Republicans always promote smaller government. We hear that from them all the time, as we have from the meeting of all the big wigs of the conservatives as they meet for CPAC. They are offereing constitutional conservatism (I wonder if this will be more successful than the contract with america??) called the "Mount Vernon Statement" which confirms the smaller, limited government. The reality however is that the government grew under all republican presidents, even when they controlled everything. Under bush- with the creation of the Homeland Security Dept. - it grew larger than it had in decades.

The stimulus: Republican Sue Myrick (NC) told a town hall group: "Why shouldn't you just keep your money and create your own jobs instead of sending it to Washington?" A statement like that is called a GAG (guaranteed applause getter). But again, not so fast, because in a letter to her constituents she said the stimulus money would lead to solar energy jobs in areas hard hit by unemployment.

The Stimulus: Republican Eric Cantor has been a vocal opponent of the stimulus bill, voting against it and criticizing it for not creating jobs. But not so fast!! On April 25, 2009, Eric Cantor said this about the stimulus money to his state and district for a high speed rail system: "This will create a lot of jobs for the commonwealth and most of them in this area, between 85,000 and 160,000 jobs".

Back to the issue at hand - republican hypocrisy: Healthcare mandates: During the Clinton presidency, when healthcare was being debated, Republican Senators Grassley and Hatch proposed an individual healthcare mandate as part of the republican proposal for health care. Fast forward to Pres. Obama and Senators Grassley and Hatch - yep, you guessed it - oppose an individual mandate in healthcare.

Of course you wouldn't think that you have benefited from any government program. You are a self-made man. If you took out student loans, the government guaranteed them. Your college might have received government funds or subsidies. There are government regulations on banks for mortgages. Your savings are protected by FDIC up to $250,000 (unlike our investments in the private stock market). You were entitled to a free public education regardless of ability to pay (oh, I know your parents paid plenty in taxes, but that's not the point). There are many ways government programs touched your life whether you know it or not. If you work for a corporation there are tons of corporate welfare and tax breaks. And there are many more but you get the point, I think.

You're just another angry, mean-spirited young conservative who thinks everything he got he earned but other people are leeches on society. A dime a dozen.

Thank you. And the difference, also, is that you, Phil and I have some life under our belts. And I know I have the scars (literally) to prove it.

It's called standing up for what you believe in and I only feel pride that I do.

Quick - send this to Boehner. It took me 2 seconds to find this online. But apparently he is in the dark. Poor guy. February 12, 2010 6:17 PM W.H. Reveals Who's Invited to Health Care Summit (AP) The White House has officially invited some members of Congress to its health care summit on Feb. 25, what it calls "the next step in this process" of legislating health care reform. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent an invitation today to the most senior House and Senate bipartisan leaders, as well as the chairmen and ranking Republicans of the committees that oversee health insurance reform legislation in both chambers. The invitation, addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, asks each of them to designate an additional four members to attend the meeting. According to the invitation, President Obama will deliver some opening remarks at the event and then open and moderate discussion on four topics: insurance reforms, cost containment, expanding coverage and the impact health reform legislation will have on deficit reduction. "We have seen again in recent days that when it comes to health care, the status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable," the invitation says. The following members of Congress were invited to the event: Senators: Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Republican Leader Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., Majority Whip Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Republican Whip Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Chairman of the Finance Committee Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Ranking Member of the Finance Committee Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Representatives: Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Speaker of the House Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Majority Leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, Republican Leader Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., Majority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., Republican Whip Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., Ranking Member of the Education and Labor Committee Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Chair Emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee A general agenda and the list of those invited. Hmm. Maybe the reason Boehner was worried about the size of the room was whether it would be big enough to hold a tanning bed for a quick touch up.

Then go to another place and start your own country. I hear Sri Lanka might be available. In the meantime, advocating the overthrow of the government is a crime: 18 U.S.C. § 2385 : US Code - Section 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government Search 18 U.S.C. § 2385 : US Code - Section 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, orteaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety ofoverthrowing or destroying the government of the United States orthe government of any State, Territory, District or Possessionthereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, byforce or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of anysuch government; orWhoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of anysuch government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printedmatter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying anygovernment in the United States by force or violence, or attemptsto do so; orWhoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage theoverthrow or destruction of any such government by force orviolence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, anysuch society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposesthereof -Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more thantwenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment bythe United States or any department or agency thereof, for the fiveyears next following his conviction.If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named inthis section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisonednot more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible foremployment by the United States or any department or agencythereof, for the five years next following his conviction.As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize",with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, includethe recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and theregrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other unitsof such society, group, or assembly of persons.

Hey, BJean, I guess we didn't know we baby boomers had it made - everything was set up for us. Did you miss that memo, too? Too funny.

I know all about your generation, too. Grade inflation. Social promotion. Making it easy for you to get ahead because of demanding parents. Rewards for just showing up. No losers. Everyone's a winner. Lying to tell you how great you are when you aren't. Promoting self esteem.

He did all his damage before the 2006 election. And if the democrats got anything through, he vetoed it and they didn't have enough votes to override a veto.l

I certainly don't find any of the people you mentioned to be snobs. Kennedy had money and certainly didn't have to devote his life to public service. But he did. And the people loved him because he fought for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, the least among us. And Nancy Pelosi is a polished, intelligent, strong, woman and a lot of people can't handle that. Like the entire republican party. And Michael Moore just tells the truth about corporate america which those beholding to corporate america don't like. And I know how hard life can be. I am a breast cancer victim and 11 months after I was diagnosed my husband was diagnosed with cancer. So, we were battling together. He succumbed to his cancer 4 years ago. So I buried my husband and became a widow at 54. That certainly was not in my plans. :biggrin: I too am educated and am retired now. But I would never call anyone an elitist just because they try to help people. What an unfair characterization.

Clinton was a great president. Did some dumb things but our country did very well under him. But what is it that has changed with this president that didn't happen under Clinton? Let's see. Hmmm. It couldn't be because Pres. Obama's black. No, of course not. Who would ever admit to that? Not the all-white tea party.

This is very hypocritical (and typical) coming from someone who had engaged in her share of name-calling. :biggrin: And for the record, I have great self-esteem, not to mention the facts on my side.

Pres. Obama would never sign a bill that contained this.

And who is the tea party going to run as candidates? It cost tons and tons of money to run and get elected to office. Where are these no-nonsense, non politico people going to get that kind of money? And to keep getting it for re-election? From fellow teabaggers? No, from lobbyists like everyone else and when they get to DC with pie in the sky and naive attitudes it will take them all of 2 seconds to see that they can't change anything. It is bigger than any one person or even a bunch of them. And who are these "elite" of which you speak? Do you mean educated people? Because we finally have brains back in the white house everyone is now an elitist? That's a word the neo-cons like to throw around like it's an insult. But we did dumb for eight years with disastrous results. So if what we have is elitist, then I'm all for it. I would rather have states secede from the union. And start with Texas. They can put dubya back in as their president.

Norman Ornstein: The best Congress you’ll ever hate [/url] Norman Ornstein | resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute | Posted: Sunday, February 7, 2010 4:00 am | (3) Comments WASHINGTON — When President Obama urged lawmakers during his State of the Union speech to work with him on “restoring the public trust,” he was hardly going out on a limb. The Congress he was addressing is one of the least popular in decades. Barely a quarter of Americans approve of the job it’s doing, according to the latest Gallup/USA Today poll. It’s not hard to find reasons why Americans are down on Capitol Hill, and why President Obama’s approval rating has dropped below 50 percent in many polls. A year into the 111th Congress, unemployment remains at almost 10 percent, and many Americans are struggling to get by -- even as they’ve watched Congress bail out banks and coddle the same bankers now salivating over massive new bonuses. At the same time, the public has had a front-row seat to the always messy legislative process on health care and other issues. There seems to be little to endear citizens to their legislature or the president. It’s too bad, because even with the wrench thrown in by Republican Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts, this Democratic Congress is on a path to become one of the most productive since the Great Society Congress in 1965-66, and Obama already has the most legislative success of any modern president -- and that includes Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson. The productivity began with the stimulus package, which was far more than an injection of $787 billion in government spending to jump-start the ailing economy. More than one-third of it -- $288 billion -- came in the form of tax cuts, making it one of the largest tax cuts in history, with sizable credits for energy conservation and renewable energy production as well as home buying and college tuition. The stimulus also promised $19 billion for the critical policy arena of health-information technology, and more than $1 billion to advance research on the effectiveness of health care treatments. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has leveraged some of the stimulus money to encourage wide-ranging reform in school districts across the country. There were also massive investments in green technologies, clean water and a smart grid for electricity, while the $70 billion or more in energy and environmental programs was perhaps the most ambitious advancement in these areas in modern times. As a bonus, more than $7 billion was allotted to expand broadband and wireless Internet access, a step toward the goal of universal access. Any Congress that passed all these items separately would be considered enormously productive. Instead, this Congress did it in one bill. Lawmakers then added to their record by expanding children’s health insurance and providing stiff oversight of the TARP funds allocated by the previous Congress. Other accomplishments included a law to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco, the largest land conservation law in nearly two decades, a credit card holders’ bill of rights and defense procurement reform. The House, of course, did much more, including approving a historic cap-and-trade bill and sweeping financial regulatory changes. And both chambers passed their versions of a health care overhaul. Financial regulation is working its way through the Senate, and is on track for enactment in the first half of this year. It is likely that the package of job-creation programs the president showcased last week, most of which got through the House last year, will be signed into law early on as well. How did it happen? Democrats, perhaps recalling the disasters of 1994, when they failed to unite behind Bill Clinton’s agenda in the face of uniform GOP opposition, came together. Obama’s smoother beginning and stronger bonds with congressional leaders also helped. But even with robust majorities, Democratic leaders deserve great credit for these achievements. Democratic ideologies stretch from the far left to the conservative, with every variation in between. Finding 219 votes for climate-change legislation in the House was nothing short of astonishing; getting all 60 Senate Democrats to support any version of major health care reform, an equal feat. The White House strategy — applying pressure quietly while letting congressional leaders find ways to build coalitions — was critical. Now Democrats’ success at keeping 59 senators in line means little if they cannot find someone on the other side willing to become vote No. 60. With Republicans ebullient over the Massachusetts election, the likelihood is that they will feel vindicated in their “just say no” strategy.

There are many democrats in both the house and senate who are DINOs (Democrats in Name Only) and they vote more like republicans. But some democrats have voted against things that weren't progressive enough. Like if it didn't have the public option in it. The republicans who consistently vote no are all in safe districts who always vote republican. They don't have to worry about being re-elected. They can just be obstructionists and get re-elected. However, the rest of america is sick of this obstructionism and wants things to get done. And remember that the democrats never had 60 votes in the senate, they had 58 and 2 independents - one of which was Lieberman who votes more with the republicans. And some of those democrats like Nelson, Landreiu, Lincoln can not be counted on for their votes. But despite all this, both the house and senate managed to pass a health care bill. So when people say the democrats had the votes and it wasn't republican obstructionists who have been a problem- they forget this. While the republicans vote like they share one brain, the democrats don't.

Fox: The Wellpoint Rate Increase Was Bad Because it Re-energized HCR by mcjoan from dailykos Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 07:06:03 AM PST How dare Anthem Blue Cross strengthen the case for reform? Earlier today on Fox Business, WellPoint VP Brad Fluegel appeared to discuss the hikes. Fox hosts Charles Payne and and Stu Varney lashed out at WellPoint for increasing rates just when "it was safe to get out of the healthcare debate." The hosts were uninterested with how the increasing rates would affect customers and struggling families in California. Instead, the pair attacked Fluegel for re-energizing advocates for health reform. Payne groaned, asking Fluegel why he didn’t "take Wall Street’s lead" and "wait for this to blow over and maybe a year from now try to hike rates": PAYNE: But Brad this is like Jaws 2, just when you thought it was safe to get out of the healthcare debate, you brought everybody back into it. [...] Didn’t someone though, wasn’t there a committee that said listen, let’s take Wall Street’s lead, do the minimum we can, wait for this to blow over and maybe a year from now try to hike rates? VARNEY: You handed the politicians red meat at a time when healthcare is being discussed. You gave it to them! [...] You couldn’t see this coming? I mean really, you couldn’t see this coming? [...] VARNEY: You actually did make a net in that quarter in twleve weeks, you made what, $500 million net profit didn’t you? You tell that to a politician and they’re going to say, ‘you made a half billion dollars in twelve weeks and now you put the price up 25%.’ ....At the end of the interview, the Fox hosts chuckled with the WellPoint VP. They apologized for being so harsh and warmly reminded Fluegel that their criticism of insurer profits was only meant to be "warm up" for Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) investigation. "You did very good," cooed one of the cohosts. Fox doesn't care that the premium increase might shut out a lot of people who would then have to go without healthcare. No, they only care because now it brings the focus back on to healthcare (and the greed of the health insurance industry).

Here we go again? About what? Did I miss something about Joe the Plumber? I just reported what he said in the news yesterday. Don't kill the messenger when you don't like the message. :biggrin: And I'd rather live in a socialistic society than one run by the greed of wall street corporations. They are ruining this country financially with their greed.

Give them a fair shake? For what? They haven't done anything but vote no. This administration has bent over backward to try to get republican input and cooperation but the republicans have voted no against everything put forth by Obama. If I were Obama, I would quit offering them anything and just push through legislation with reconciliation like the republicans did under bush (e.g. the two tax cuts for the rich).

Are you saying that he and the others attending the meeting don't have the right to know what will be discussed, whether or not it will be televised and who all will be there? What I am saying is that he already knows what it is about (unless he wasn't paying attention) - Healthcare. And I'm saying that it shouldn't matter if it's on tv, because that's what he wanted. And I'm saying that it shouldn't matter who is in attendance - what? does he need his bff to go? And I'm saying that he should quit whining, put on his big boy pants and go.

He's worried that it's another political bombardment by the democrats. He doesn't want to show up ready to have a discussion on healthcare, only to get thrown under the bus on national tv again. Are you saying that he and the others attending the meeting don't have the right to know what will be discussed, whether or not it will be televised and who all will be there? I'd be worried too, if I were him. Because he and the rest of his bunch do a lot of yapping but have no answers or solutions. And they don't want to be seen on tv for what they really are. He wants these things on tv, what is he afraid of? Makes you want to go hhhmmm.