Cleo's Mom

It's a mentality that is exhibited far too often. In my small town newspaper they run an online question each week. Last week's question was about a proposed community rec center and whether people would be willing to pay more taxes for it. Some said yes, they would like a rec center and would pay more taxes for it. Some said no, we don't need a rec center. But most said yes, we need a rec center but they wouldn't be willing to pay more taxes for it. That's typical. People want good schools, roads, healthcare, etc.. but they don't want to pay for it. Who do they think is going to pay for these things? Wal Mart? McDonald's?

It's not about cost. None of those who oppose Obama's agenda really care about cost. Did any of them question the cost of bush's medicare part D program (a trillion over 10 years) - they just pushed it through - no debate, no townhall meetings, no media scrutiny. Ditto for tax cuts for the rich and Iraqi war. The cost is just a smokescreen for their real agenda - to have Obama fail so they can increase their numbers in 2010 and 2012 elections.

I might add that when you don't address the difficult problems - like bush didn't - then you can't be criticized. Like the failing economy, rising unemployment, healthcare, clean, renewable energy, etc.. You just promote the status quo and kick the can down the road to the next president. Tackling this difficult problems is going to be a painful process. There are no easy answers but President Obama has the intelligence, ability and guts to do so and has said that if he is only a one term president because of it, then so be it. Bush was only concerned about being re-elected and didn't care what lies he told or problems he ignored to be so.

I agree and let me give my opinion of who makes up the republican party that has grown increasingly conservative. Of course there are exceptions (most on these boards will take exception, of course, but here it is): The 4 R's of Republicanism: 1) Rich 2) Racist 3) Redneck 4) Religious Right The first group are the CEO's, the wealthy, the have's - those that have jobs, healthcare, an investment portfolio, etc.. and they want policies in place that make sure they get all the breaks and continue to be the haves while not wanting the have nots to get a piece of their pie. They think they deserve everything they have - no one else does. The second group are those who hate minorities, blacks and latinos and who are very anti-immigration. They blame everything on them. This group is largely the white men who are republicans. They were once in control of jobs, etc.. and now blame the minorities for taking what they believe was rightfully theirs. The third group are largely under or un-educated people who have no understanding of how the government works. They just are anti government. It is evil to them. And they say this as they collect their government unemployment, collect Social Security and medicare, drive on government paid for roads, etc.. And they say all this as they hug their guns and profess to be God-fearing people. The last group - well they just want their particular religious views to be injected into the government and promote policy and agenda. But they don't want government in their religion, of course. They also want the government to fund their religious initiatives. Many can fall into more than one category but again, this is my opinion and based on seeing and listening to those who are conservative republicans.

I have hypothyroidism and have spent the last 6 years getting the dose of synthroid right. After my breast cancer and meds my former dose that had been working wasn't working. So we tried raising, then lowering the dose and now have found the combo that seems to be working. I had my thyroid blood work done every 3 months for the past 2 years to get to this point. So, I don't think it's my thyroid. I am going to be 59 next month, so age and declining metabolism I think plays a part. But a bigger part is that the stomach below my band is still producing hunger hormones. Hunger was my reason for obesity. It always took a lot of food for me to feel satisfied. I am not one who has to have certain foods - like fast foods or pop, etc... When I was hungry any food would do - Cereal, toast, a bagel, etc.. My goal was to be satisfied. And this was true when I was thin and could eat all I wanted and not gain. But that changed, obviously. And that "wait 20 minutes" after you eat rule to feel satisfied never worked for me. It takes a lot longer most of the time for me to get to that point. All that being said, if my insurance paid for it, I think the sleeve would have been the better choice for the reasons I overate. Not food choices, but amount - due to hunger. But I didn't even know about the sleeve then but reading all these posts, it seems like you should choose the WLS that most closely matches your bad eating habits. And for me, that was just eating too much of regular food due to hunger. And the sleeve seems to address that better than the band. My band certainly has never controlled my hunger. I am operating on pure willpower.

I was banded in September 2008. I have only lost 15 pounds from the band. I lost the other 60 pounds from my own diet, the 6 month pre-op diet, the liquid only diets before and after surgery. So I'm down 75 lbs. I had to switch doctors last April because my first one was inexperienced and lacking in knowledge about good follow up care. I have a 4cc band. I just got out of the hospital yesterday (Sunday) after being admitted from the ER Saturday night due to having food stuck that would not resolve itself. The pain was unbearable. The resident surgeon took out all my fill. (It was a little over 1cc - maybe 1.5 - I thought I had 2cc). But I still wasn't able to keep Water down. So they admitted me. The pain resolved overnight and an UGI the next day showed that it was going through, not blockage. But my bigger point is that the band has not worked for me like I have seen in the posts of successful bandsters. I struggle everyday with hunger. But I just eat my 1300 calories and still don't lose weight. I exercise everyday. About 4.8 hours a week. I mixed it up. Added weights and low impact aerobics to my treadmill. Still nothing. I eat a healthy, low fat, sugar free diet. I don't drink with my meals. I don't have any unhealthy foods in the house. I get enough Protein. I eat with a shrimp fork and baby spoon. But the scale doesn't move. So, now after this last episode I am feeling more frustrated. I am naturally going to be uneasy about getting more fills after this episode. I know I will have to in the future. And I know it was my fault that I got stuck. I ate too fast and probably didn't chew well enough. But all that being said. I would think that even without the band, my calorie intake and exercise should promote weight loss, but it isn't. I don't hold out hope for the band ever working for me like it has for others. And I am not one of those who is willing to put up with a tight band that results in pain, reflux and heartburn just to get to some number on the scale.

Very well said BJean. But it all makes too much sense to be embraced by the right wing.

My point, that you missed again, is that these Obama protestors didn't care about the things they are protesting when they happened under bush but now all of a sudden we are to believe that they are these homegrown, grassroots, fiscal conservatives. Give me a break. I'm smarter than that. I know who organized them and more importantly why.

The things that the teabaggers in their astroturf movement CLAIM to be protesting about Obama happened under bush, too. But since they didn't find any reason to protest these things under bush, their protests now ring hollow and hypocritical. And I, and many others, see right through them. But the things the protestors protested against bush - selling us on an unjustified war with lies (Iraq); opening up Gitmo, torture, secret CIA prisons, outing Valerie Plame, Katrina - well these things don't exist under Obama.

Thank you. :thumbup:

Let me also add to my previous post (what Obama & Congress has done not for me, but for the country) -The House just passed sweeping regulations of Wall Street called the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. It would: 1) create a mechanism for government to dissolve huge globally interconnected banks; 2) provide first-ever regulation of derivatives 3) rein in excessive financial speculations investments 4) require banks to set aside more capital in reserve 5)eliminate the much maligned Office of Thrift Supervision 6) give shareholders a greater say on executive pay 7) tighten supervision over credit rating agencies who sold out investors. Now, all of this is good for those of us on Main Street, but want to guess how many republicans voted for this? THAT RIGHT - ZERO REPUBLICANS - FRIENDS AND DEFENDERS OF BIG CORPORATIONS AND WALL STREET - VOTED NO!!! Also, during all this debate about health care - all that the republicans have been harping on is how Pres. Obama should be focusing on jobs. Well, now he wants to use some of the paid back bank bailout money to go to job programs. And guess what? THAT'S RIGHT - THE REPUBLICANS ARE AGAINST THAT, TOO. THEY ARE AGAINST A JOBS PROGRAM FOR AMERICAN. It is so clear that the elected republicans and those protestors organized by the big businesses that support them only want Obama to fail so as to INCREASE THEIR CHANCES OF GETTING ELECTED IN 2010 AND 2012 so they can drive home their agenda which is tax cuts for the rich, war at any cost, anti-abortion, gays and immigration, and everyone else be damned.

Congress went to the democrats in 2006, so bush had a republican congress for the first 6 years of his administration. What bush did was take a surplus and turn it into a deficit in 3 ways: 1) Two wars (the one in Iraq unnecessary) 2) Tax cut to the rich 3) Medicare part D (huge giveaway to pharma - about a trillion over 10 years) All of the above was done with almost no debate, no demand for what they would cost - nothing, just pushed through. The de-regulation of wall street during his and the previous congress caused the economic collapse. The unemployment was rising for all 12 months of 2008, bush's last year. Also it was under BUSH that the bank bailouts started - the most unpopular of government interventions. But people expected that unemployment would be reduced by half the day after Obama took office. Here is what Obama and his democratic congress has done; 1) Stopped the economic freefall that would have led to a depression had it not been addressed. The stimulus is responsible for this. NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR THIS IN CONGRESS AND ONLY 3 IN THE SENATE. 2) Slowed the loss of jobs from 700,000 month to 11,000. The unemployment would probably be near 15-20% if he hadn't. Again, the stimulus - saved or created 1.6 million jobs. 3) The banks are paying back the money we loaned them and the bailout is costing less than originally thought. Now some of that payback will go to a jobs program and some to pay down debt - both good. 4) Is addressing the healthcare problems facing this country that had been completely ignored by bush and congress. Their plan: go to the ER. People without healthcare are dying. That is unacceptable in a rich country like ours. AGAIN, NO REPUBLICAN SUPPORT. 5) Is addressing global warming and promoting renewable, clean energy alternatives which will create jobs. Also good. 6) Signed the Lilly Ledbetter act that allows women (or men) to file a lawsuit should they find that they were paid less than their male counterparts. It gives them 6 months to file after their last paycheck. AGAIN, NO REPUBLICAN SUPPORT. I find those who protest bush in the streets (eg. teabaggers) to be hypocritical. They claim to be opposed to expanding government, the deficit, and government in their healthcare. Where were they when bush was running up the debt? Where were they when bush expanded the government (creating new departments)? Where were they when bush expanded the government in healthcare with medicare part D or just the government healthcare programs in general - medicare, medicaid, VA benefits (all popular)? Where were they when the government LITERALLY injected itself in a personal, family end of life decision (that happens all the time, everyday) in the Terry Schiavo case? Congress tried to get between a husband and his decision for his brain dead wife. WOW, now that government interference. So, I will continue to say what I have said all along. Those who protest are just anti-Obama. Their reasons ring hollow and hypocritical. These are people who didn't and never would vote for him and just want him to fail.

So what christian denomination gets it right?

I changed doctors 7 months after surgery. Among other things, my former doctor gave me the "come to Jesus" talk when I didn't lose any weight after my first fill. I was eating very healthy but he was all about the number on the scale. He was also a general surgeon and inexperienced in bariatric surgery as well as post op care and how the band should work. Best decision I ever made to change doctors. My new doctor is supportive, experienced and knowledgable. Find a new doctor ASAP and be sure to get ALL of your test results, including operative report and office visit notes to take to your new doctor. Good luck.

Your oversimplified explainations are nothing short of insane. My mother had a stroke and couldn't walk. She needed to be lifted in and out of the wheelchair, into the walk-in shower, and was taken to the doctors in their speciality van. And while vans can come to your home for that purpose, the person needs to be able to get themselves to the van. I have a full flight of steps to outside. Add to this that I have a back condition that precludes me from lifting. I was also battling breast cancer at this time and my husband was battling esophageal cancer from which he died. But I guess I was supposed to take care of a bedridden mother, a dying husband, my cancer treatment, provide all nursing services and physical therapy too. I am no longer going to debate this. Your analysis is not grounded in reality. I AM DONE.

Electrawoman - this happened in Pittsburgh last April when a man in his 20's - worried that Obama was going to take away his guns- executed 3 police officers when they arrived at his and his mother's home for a domestic dispute. He was armed with assault weapons and had a bullet proof vest (illegal) and lying in wait for the officers. Someone like him didn't need much provocation - listening to the hate talk radio, tv and internet sites feeds these people with fear, hate and propoganda. They incite people, especially those who are bent in that direction and whose mental stability is not good. They bear some resposibility for these crimes.

Oh, you have it all figured out. Just have one adult child quit their job. Which one should quit, the one with the higher salary or the one with the healthcare plan? And mom or dad's SS should take the place of the lost salary? How utterly unrealisitc. What if they need both salaries to pay for THEIR care in the old age, or to pay for THEIR retirement or to pay for THEIR children's college? And they quit their job and mom or dad dies a few months later. JOB IS GONE AND SO IS SS. Then what? Oh, I guess another good job will just be waiting for them. Most people in nursing homes are not ambulatory. Most homes are not equiped to care for someone who can't walk or is bedridden. Not to mention that many need specific therapy. How are you supposed to do than in your home? Then there is the need for the elderly parent to go to see doctors from time to time. When they are in a wheelchair, the nursing home has special vans to transport them (no steps). I guess you are also supposed to sell your home if it has steps and move to one with ramps and then sell your car and buy a van that accomodates a wheelchair. Then I guess you are supposed to be able to lift the non-ambulatory person from bed to chair, toilet, shower, etc. And of course become a nurse on the spot, taking blood pressure, monitoring vitals, taking blood, etc... You obviously have NOT thought this through in your typical unrealistic and narrow visioned look at the world.

Everything is not cut and dry. Or black & white. I know about taking care of an elderly parent and having them in a nursing home. It's easy to say you would do this or that if you haven't been in the situation.

We (government) help industry all the time. It's called corporate welfare. They get enormous tax breaks that have to be made up somewhere and by someone. Guess who that is? The collapse of the housing market was a big part of our economic collapse. Our economy cannot afford that- so I am in favor of helping people buy homes. And getting rid of gas guzzlers helps our environment and increases demand for new cars and new car production which keeps employees working. Also good. We were losing 700,000 jobs a month when Pres. Obama took office. Imagine what the unemployment rate would be if we were still losing at that rate. Thanks to the stimulus program - last month the loss was 11,000. Still bad, but we've come a long way thanks to Pres. Obama's foresight and willingness to tackle the tough jobs. Plus about 1/3 of the stimulus went to tax cuts for 95% of the american wage earners. And also to extend unemployment. This puts money in people's pockets. Also good. I know you just want to let people suffer because whatever befalls them is their own fault, from unemployment, disease, old age, disability, lack of health insurance, etc... They got that way by being shiftless, lazy bums who just want big screen tv's. But I am glad I live in a country that provides a safety net and incentives to help get people back to work and businesses to hire. Providing for citizen's safety is NOT just about the military.

You are very selective in your outrage of government spending. I can't afford the nearly $3000 dollars the needless and unnecessary war in Iraq has cost me. (and each American). It didn't create any jobs except for those no-bid contractor friends of cheney. And even more importantly, the cost of the 4000+ lives lost in Iraq. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, didn't have WMD and was sold to the American public and congress, who reeling from 9/11, was willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt (or be dubbed a traitor). Additionally: The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48 trillion over the 2001-2010 period. I can't afford the $8300 this tax cut has cost me. Because 52% of these cuts went to the top 5% of taxpayers. Not me. And these tax cuts didn't create jobs, either as evident with our economic crash during the last year of the bush administration. At least the cash for clunkers and the tax exemption for first time home buyers helps the auto and housing industry - both severely hurt by the recession and helps to save or create jobs.

Pattygreen meant it in as a very large, sweeping generalization. I know there are many people who don't believe in God and have rejected organized religion but I don't think that represents the majority of people in this country and that is what I meant. And I think that regardelss of what people's beliefs or non-beliefs are they don't want religion in their government. They want a separation of church and state. I know I do.

People aren't turning against God they just want to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's and keep the two separate. Regardless of what the founder fathers might have envisioned they could not have envisioned the melting pot our country is now.

Yes, that is what social security was designed for. For the elderly in retirement, and the children of widows and widowers and to provide disability payments. And the recipients get paid with the contributions of CURRENT workers. The first people to receive SS in our country did not contribute to it. The workers of that day were paying for it. And those receiving it now are getting paid from the contributions of current workers. And since the stock market tanked you don't hear too much about the privatization of social security. People see how their 401(K) lost 50% of their value in this economic crisis. So much for saving for retirement!!! What about those who did save and then lost 50%? I guess they should just continue to work until they drop dead. Most of the working poor are single mothers. They need subsidized child care to be able to work otherwise it wouldn't be profitable to work. But even still they can't afford rent, food, or healthcare. That's where rent subsidies, food stamps and medicaid comes in. The constitution says we have the right to life...healthcare is life. Without it people die. If an embryo has the right to life, then already born people do and that means healthcare. HEALTHCARE = LIFE. Don't you get it???? And nursing home care is $7000 - $10,000 per month. Who has that kind of money saved? Sometimes people go into nursing homes when they are younger and have suffered a tragic accident or disease that leaves them unable to take care of themselves. They are supposed to have saved this much money?? Ridiculous and unrealistic, as usual. Your whole analysis is ridiculous & unrealistic.