pattygreen

I find it funny that you believe the majority of Americans are inferior to yourself. You believe that the majority of Americans are stupid and you're so clever. How is it that liberals are just so intelligent and the rest of the country has the IQ of an ant? Prov. 29:23 - "a man's pride will bring him low." Prov. 11:2 "Pride comes before the fall."

You people may call these deeds of Obama "accomplishments" and "achievements", But we call them "bringing us to the brink of annhiliation". What one man gives away and splurges on, another is forced to work very hard to pay for. Liberals are known for their tax and spend mentality. They spend until they are forced to vomit! And even then, they will shove a handful of dollar bills down their throats to keep from spewing forth their upchuck! Some of these extravagant expenditures are just dandy until one must come up with the means to pay for them.

Christian ethics teach that in God’s Church mercy goes before right. A Christian is called to have as the ideal to live in reconciliation, forgiveness and love with their fellow men, even their enemies. According to Christian ethics judgement, revenge and retaliation is not allowed between people in everyday life. But the rules are different for the authority. The heavenly ideal that the Christian Church is to strive for is not decided by God to be placed in earthly nations codes of law in order for violent criminals and murderers to receive mercy and avoid just punishment. If this happened, it would be suicide of the state governed by law. In a functioning and civilized state governed by law mercy must not come before right. A functioning and civilized state governed by law has the right and obligation to leave out of account Jesus’ words concerning not judging a fellow man. The same goes for words concerning love and forgiveness. The authority is called by God to judge, and sometimes pass severe judgements. Jesus’ message of love is therefore not aimed at the judging authorities. There is nothing implied in the gospels of the Bible that Jesus had any concern for the state governed by law in his teaching of love. If it had been so, that Christ’s teaching included the judicial system, every state governed by law that has ever existed throughout history would fall under the judgement, including all the "Christian" nations that ever existed. But there is no country in the world that during the course of history has interpreted Jesus’ teaching of love to also include the courts and trials and that Christ’s teaching of forgiveness and love should be written in the law concerning criminals. A sound awareness has been that this would be the end of the state governed by law and in the long run it would cause lawlessness and an increased spread of evil in the society. The foundation of the civilized society would fall apart. The great teachers of the Bible could separate where Love belonged and where Right belonged. To them reality did not exclude either of these two great things. Here are three examples: Moses could, in the midst of a legal context, declare: "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." (Lev 19:18). But in the next chapter there are several types of death penalties decreed. Jesus encouraged love and forgiveness between people, but at the same time accepted the punishing authority (Matt 15:3-4, 26:52, John 19:10-11). In Rom 12:17-21 Paul speaks of the relationship between people. The text says that we must not avenge each other but give the revenge to God. Only a few verses later (Rom 13:1-6) Paul speaks of the authority, the judging authority, which on the other hand is "an agent of wrath". (v 4) The great personalities of the Bible can both join and keep apart the Law and the Love without creating any discrepancies. As described above the Christian Church has believed and taught throughout all times. It was not until the middle of the 20th century that new sounds from parts of Christianity began to be heard, i.e. through different documents where one, using Jesus’ message of love as a foundation, disassociates from the death penalty. As a consequence one disqualifies the authority’s right to judge and punish. This would have catastrophic consequences to, among other things, justice, human value, goodness and the moral order in society if this new, naive, and Bible foreign view were followed.

From his very own lips. When he first started talking about HC for all, he said he wanted government run HC for ALL.

Pelosi's Loss Could Be Obama's Gain A pivot to the center (and re-election) would be easier without the House speaker. By FRED BARNES In Washington these days, President Obama is rumored to be hoping Republicans capture the House of Representatives in the midterm election in November. There's no evidence for this speculation, so far as I know, but it's hardly far-fetched. If Mr. Obama wants to avert a fiscal crisis and win re-election in 2012, he needs House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be removed from her powerful post. A GOP takeover may be the only way. Given the deficit-and-debt mess that Mr. Obama has on his hands, a Republican House would be a godsend. A Republican Senate would help, too. A Republican majority, should it materialize, could be counted on to pass significant cuts in domestic spending next year—cuts that Mrs. Pelosi and her allies in the House Democratic hierarchy would never countenance. View Full Image Associated Press Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama Though Mr. Obama's preferred solution to his fiscal predicament would probably be a very large tax increase, it's a nonstarter. He needs spending cuts to assuage both markets and voters. It was the surge in spending—the stimulus, omnibus budget and the health-care legislation—that prompted the tea party protests, alienated independent voters, and caused the rapid decline in his popularity. The test is whether Mr. Obama can restrain nondefense discretionary spending. That's the spending over which Washington exerts the greatest control. Even small cuts in entitlement spending are difficult to enact, but the president and Republicans might reach agreement there as well. That would be a political bonus for Mr. Obama, softening his image as a tax-and-spend liberal. Again, this would be impossible if Ms. Pelosi still runs the House. Over the past 50 years, it should be no surprise which president has the best record for holding down discretionary spending. It was President Reagan. But who was second best? President Clinton, a Democrat. His record of frugality was better than Presidents Nixon, Ford and both Bushes. Mr. Clinton couldn't have done it if Republicans hadn't won the House and Senate in the 1994 election. They insisted on substantial cuts, he went along and then whistled his way to an easy re-election in 1996. Here are the numbers: Average nondefense discretionary outlays per year under Nixon and Ford increased 39.7% over those of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, followed by another 39% boost under Mr. Carter, a 14% drop under Mr. Reagan, a 12% jump under the first Mr. Bush, a 7.6% hike under Mr. Clinton, and a 31.2% increase under the second Mr. Bush. Only four times in the past half century have nondefense discretionary expenditures in real terms decreased in a two-year congressional cycle. And only Reagan's first Congress—controlled by Democrats—cut more (15.5%) than the Republican Congress that Mr. Clinton faced after the 1994 election (3.7%). The other two reductions came under Reagan (2.5%, the 1986-87 budgets) and the younger Mr. Bush (.01%, the 2006-07 budgets). If defense spending, which is also discretionary, is included, the result is the same. Mr. Clinton, working with a Republican majority, is second to Reagan. And in his new book, "Never Enough, America's Limitless Welfare State," William Voegeli of the Claremont Institute found that "welfare state" spending since FDR increased less under Mr. Clinton than under any president except Reagan. Let's assume Mr. Obama recognizes that the fiscal and economic peril facing the country because of trillion dollar deficits is a problem for him as well. At the moment, the 10-year deficit tab is pegged to be as low as $6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office) or as high as $13 trillion (Heritage Foundation). Either way, the public is alarmed. Mr. Obama's re-election to a second term is heavily dependent on his ability to deal effectively with the fiscal mess. He could try to push a big tax hike, like a value-added tax, through a lame duck Congress after the November election. But that's very much a long shot. Besides, higher taxes—on top of those from expiration of the Bush tax cuts—could infuriate voters all the more. For Mr. Obama, serious spending cuts are the only sensible means of dealing with a potential debt crisis or at least an unsustainable fiscal situation. However, he may not be able to rely on reductions in military spending, as liberal Democrats usually prefer. Mr. Obama has already included deep defense cuts in his budget, and Republicans are unlikely to go along with even deeper cuts. Mrs. Pelosi won't be any help. She's committed to enacting the Democratic Party's entire liberal agenda, and next to the president she is the most powerful person in Washington. When the president flirted with scaling back his health-care bill last January, Ms. Pelosi stiffened his spine, and the bill passed. As long as she is House speaker, bucking her would be painful, especially if Mr. Obama proposes to eliminate a chunk of the spending she was instrumental in passing in 2009 and 2010. But if Republicans win the House, everything changes. Mrs. Pelosi's influence as minority leader would be minimal—that is, assuming she's not ousted by Democrats upset over losing the majority. Mr. Obama would be in a position to make his long-awaited pivot to the center. With Republicans in charge, he'd have to be bipartisan. He'd surely have to accede to serious cuts in spending—even as he complains they are harsh and mean-spirited. Mr. Obama could play a double game, appeasing Democrats by criticizing the cuts and getting credit with everyone else by acquiescing to them. Mr. Clinton did this brilliantly in 1996. He fought with Republicans over the budget, winning some battles, losing others, as he lurched to the center. He twice vetoed Republican welfare reform bills, then signed a similar measure. He was hailed as the president who overhauled the unpopular welfare system. In recent months, the president has met repeatedly with Mr. Clinton. We can only guess what they talked about. (probably how to get a certain someone off the voting ballot and give them a government job in exchange.) But given Mr. Clinton's own experience, I suspect he suggested to Mr. Obama that Republicans could be the answer to his political prayers. In 1994, Republicans freed the president from the clutches of liberal Democratic leaders in Congress. In 2010, they can do it again.

The same polling company you used also says that the country is heading in the wrong direction. Remember, THIS Health Care plan is NOT the one Obama wanted. He wanted government insurance for everyone. Conservatives had to work very HARD to keep Obama from ruining us with government run HI. Americans live in the here and now. People tend to ignore the consequences until they are upon them. This HC bill may seem to them like it's getting better, but wait till they have to pay for it in the form of higher taxes or a higher cost of living. And, they will have to pay for it in one way or the other. Nothing is free in life. What one person gets for nothing, someone else has to work hard for.

Rep. Murphy toes the party line in touting Obamacare Recently I wrote to Rep. Christopher Murphy, D-5th District, in response to his correspondence to me regarding the new health-care legislation. I disagreed strongly with everything he listed as benefits of the bill. For example, his claim of transparency is weak. There's no denying that secret deals sealed the bill's passage, and those deals reeked. The one televised "hearing" was nothing more than a staged event to give credence to President Obama's promise of transparency. The meeting did not result in any meaningful change to the legislation. Murphy also claimed the bill is not a government takeover of health care; I would add the qualifier "yet." It is a steppingstone to the single-payer system progressives have been advocating for decades. It creates more than 100 new federal agencies, commissions, boards to implement and oversee health care. Four years of revenue collection would take place before many of the benefits are offered. The secretary of Health and Human Services will determine "acceptable" coverage. Thousands of additional IRS agents would be needed to enforce the individual mandate. All of these elements indicate an increased role for the federal government and much less individual responsibility for or choice in health insurance. Murphy noted the Congressional Budget Office predicted deficit reduction as a result of the bill. The CBO numbers depend on revenue and expenses Congress projects. Additionally, I have read of discrepancies in the Medicare numbers and the lack of the physicians' "fix" in the legislation. I don't believe the CBO numbers or any others coming from a congressional organization. How can Medicare be expanded and remain solvent, given its tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities, and how can the budget deficit be reduced over the next 10 years? This too-good-to-be-true scenario is financed by raising taxes, starting with eliminating the Bush tax cuts on "the rich," which includes small businesses. Plus, new taxes will be applied to capital gains, interest and dividends, and new taxes on medical equipment, which increases costs. Murphy claimed the bill will help small businesses provide insurance by subsidizing their costs. Some of those businesses don't provide insurance because they can't afford it. Even if the government kicks in half of the cost, these businesses still will incur a new expense, which gets passed along to the consumer through higher prices. As for pre-existing conditions, simply requiring insurance companies to accept all people without an appropriate premium adjustment is ignorant of actuarial science. For companies to stay in business, premiums for everyone necessarily will rise. The industry will have no choice but to pay claims. This is a recipe for failure which, again, presents the opportunity for a full government takeover of health care. As for children remaining on their parents' policies until they're 26, this provision baffles me. If there is a real need for a child to remain on his parents' policy, there should be enough flexibility in the system for him to work out a contractual arrangement with the insurance company. There is no need for the government to get involved. This bill does very little to control costs: no tort reform, no buying insurance across state lines, no tax credits for people who buy their own insurance, no incentives for people to live healthy lifestyles. Instead, this bill continues the trend in which the federal government decides what is "good for" the public. Murphy and I have corresponded several times, and each time I have come to the conclusion we have different ideas about the role of government. He believes it is the government's purpose to solve everyone's problems; I believe it is the government's responsibility to protect individual liberty so we can solve our own problems. Karen Dignacco

their 'facts' in your opinion!

You have a nerve to say anything about me cutting and pasting, especially when YOU are the cut and paste QUEEN!!!!!

New draft health-care regs: If you like your plan, you can’t necessarily keep your plan Share posted at 6:48 pm on June 11, 2010 by Allahpundit printer-friendly I vaguely recall hearing that we would be able to keep our plans if we liked them, but then I also vaguely recall hearing that Iran wouldn’t be allowed to build nuclear weapons, that this would be the most transparent administration ever, that the deficit is a very serious problem, etc etc. We’ve been averaging around one story per week about bad outcomes/unintended consequences flowing from O-Care, but this little Friday news dump makes two in five days. Remember Ed’s post on Monday about one million low-income workers possibly losing their health insurance? [A]n early draft of an administration regulation estimates that many employers will be forced to make changes to their health plans under the new law. In just three years, a majority of workers — 51 percent — will be in plans subject to new federal requirements, according to midrange projections in the draft. Republicans said Obama broke his promise. Employer groups were divided… “What we are getting here is a clear indication that most plans will have to change,” said James Gelfand, health policy director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “From an employer’s point of view that’s a bad thing. These changes, whether or not they’re good for consumers, are most certainly accompanied by a cost.”… An administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the rules are still being written, said the final version will uphold Obama’s promise, accommodating employers’ desire for flexibility while protecting consumers from runaway costs. Their strategy for letting you keep your plan if you like your plan is to include a “grandfather clause” that would exempt current plans from consumer protection requirements so long as copayments and deductibles are below certain limits. The problem: If your insurer alters the terms of the plan in the normal course of business and those limits are crossed, it’s no longer a grandfathered plan and the new consumer-protection benefits suddenly become mandatory — which means an exciting new monthly premium when your insurer inevitably passes the costs of those benefits on. But then, we already knew that this Obama promise was bogus. Remember Scott Gottlieb’s piece in the Journal last month on how insurers would soon run out of options in managing new costs imposed on them by regulations, with the inevitable result being collapse and consolidation? Massachusetts’s problem is our problem now. For your companion reading, enjoy Jeffrey Anderson’s rundown of all the wonderful things we’ve learned about O-Care since it passed, just as Pelosi promised that we would. His post is two weeks old and already outdated. Such is the pace of “Change.” From last August, here’s official White House video of Linda Douglass — formerly of ABC, currently of Atlantic media — responding to the evil conservative disinformation campaign which claimed, contra The One, that you might not be able to keep your plan if you like it. Wingnuts.

Obama to GOP: Please make ObamaCare a massive deficit sinkhole Share posted at 9:04 am on June 12, 2010 by Ed Morrissey printer-friendly At last, the failure of Congress to integrate their “doctor fix” into ObamaCare has created enough political pressure to get Barack Obama involved in another health-care fight — this one entirely predictable and avoidable. Democrats played it cute during the crafting and eventual passage of ObamaCare by keeping their intent to rescind the scheduled 21% cuts in reimbursement to Medicare providers away from the CBO while the bill got scored, allowing Democrats in Congress and Obama to claim that ObamaCare saved a negligible amount in the first ten years. Now, with doctors and Medicare administrators screaming about the scheduled cuts that went into effect on June 1, Obama uses his weekly address to beg Republicans to allow the Democratic shell game to finish: Since 2003, Congress has acted to prevent these pay cuts from going into effect. These votes were largely bipartisan, and they succeeded when Democrats ran Congress and when Republicans ran Congress – which was most of the time. This year, a majority of Congress is willing to prevent a pay cut of 21% — a pay cut that would undoubtedly force some doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients altogether. But this time, some Senate Republicans may even block a vote on this issue. After years of voting to defer these cuts, the other party is now willing to walk away from the needs of our doctors and our seniors. Oh, no no no no, Mr. President. You don’t get to claim that this time. You and your colleagues on the Hill promised that ObamaCare would pay for itself based on the scheduled reimbursement numbers staying in place. What you want Republicans to do is to sign off on creating an even larger deficit, thanks to the mandates you, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid put into place with ObamaCare. I’m absolutely willing to take the difficult steps necessary to lower the cost of Medicare and put our budget on a more fiscally sustainable path. But I’m not willing to do that by punishing hard-working physicians or the millions of Americans who count on Medicare. That’s just wrong. And that’s why in the short-term, Congress must act to prevent this pay cut to doctors. Now you’re willing to take difficult steps, but not during the ObamaCare debate? This problem was well known for the entirety of the debate. Instead of actually addressing it comprehensively, you bought off the AMA by cutting a sleazy side deal to buy their support. Had you really wanted to consider the needs of our doctors and seniors, your “comprehensive” health-care overhaul bill would have included a revamp of the scheduled cuts. The problem here isn’t doctor compensation. Congress waived the cuts fairly regularly because everyone understood that. The problem Medicare faces is excessive eligibility and far too much bureaucracy. Previous Congresses and administrations knew they were kicking the can down the road, but this year is different. This Congress and this administration created an even larger bureaucracy and based its cost structure on finally implementing the scheduled Medicare cuts in order to sell the bill of goods to the American public. In promising that ObamaCare would be deficit neutral based on CBO assessments with these cuts in place, Obama implicitly endorsed these cuts. They are not a Republican problem; they are an Obama problem. And the GOP does not need to rescue Obama from his own folly. If Obama and the Democrats want to continue to spin and fib about what a great bill ObamaCare is, then let it stand as it was passed — and let the American public see for themselves just how great it actually is.

Hot Air This is so typical of liberals. It seems they actually LOOK for a stupid reason to cry "racists!" I listened to the cards full content and heard black holes, not black hores. The card is all about the solar systems and being able to conquer the universe as a graduate.

Deficit spenders: In February, President Obama created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to develop a plan to stabilize the $13 trillion national debt and reduce federal borrowing. The committee's real purpose, of course, is to give him political cover for the gigantic tax increases coming after this year's elections so Democrats can continue to preserve unionized government jobs at all levels and grow the government as they take America further down the road to socialism. Now comes word that the commission is running a deficit, and is demanding the president vastly expand its staff (hire more unionized government workers) and increase its budget from $500,000 to something on the order of $8 million so it can do a proper job of putting the screws to taxpayers. For its profligacy and fecklessness, the commission won the Someone Left the Irony On Award from the HotAir.com blog.

I didn't say that I was against masturbation. Read it again. I said, and I quote: "I am not sure if that is sinful to God or not. Some say it is only if your thoughts are sinful while you do it, and some say it is not a sin. So, I can't answer that." I feel organ donations are a good thing. They save lives. I believe that God gave doctors the knowledge and the wisdom to use others organs to save the lives of those who need them. When you need to 'sin' in order to achieve your final goal, then what you are doing is wrong.

Originally Posted by pattygreen "Our nation's unemployment rate is hovering near 10% not because of record job losses, as Biden suggests, but because of record job non-creation. Private sector employers have gone on strike.To save money and increase profits, businesses have laid off workers and increased the workload of remaining employees. This is reflected in the increase in GNP. Contrary to what the President's economic wizards and New York Times columnists believe, massive government deficit spending does not stimulate job creation. President Obama does not have a secret vault of money he can just throw at the American people. The resources MONEY the government spends come from the economy. When the government increases spending, it crowds out the resources Exactly what resources are these businesses referring to? I'll tell you what - it's government subsidies. So, they want a direct handout from the government as opposed to the government putting the money into the general economy. No. The resources they are refering to are things like new employees that they could have hired, or they could have spent their money on anything at all that they felt would have grown their business, like advertising, or a new product to sell, etc. But because the government was spending soooooo much of the peoples money dishing it out frivilously to "stimulte" things, they couldn't do that. The money Obama spent "stimulating" the economy came from somewhere. Oh, yeah, the businessmans pocket. that business owners could have invested in their enterprises. Private investment falls sharply when government spending rises." Conn Carroll

"Our nation's unemployment rate is hovering near 10% not because of record job losses, as Biden suggests, but because of record job non-creation. Private sector employers have gone on strike. Contrary to what the President's economic wizards and New York Times columnists believe, massive government deficit spending does not stimulate job creation. President Obama does not have a secret vault of money he can just throw at the American people. The resources the government spends come from the economy. When the government increases spending, it crowds out the resources that business owners could have invested in their enterprises. Private investment falls sharply when government spending rises." Conn Carroll

Such a comic!:frown:

Nice try. But, when the jobs end in another month, we'll be right back where we were. You can't count jobs that will only last for 2 months as a gain in jobs that will help the people get out of joblessness. And then take credit for job increases due to the stimulus money spent. NO! The job increases was due to the fact that we hired Temporary census workers, not the stimulus outrageous spending! What about the fact that the government is paying these people twice as much as is needed? Yopu have not addressed this. But of course, you are probably in favor of it. You will find a reason to say that this extravagance is okay. Your government can do no wrong.

People who were on unemployment a while back are no longer eligible to recieve payments, therefore, they are still unemployed, just not collecting anything anymore. Those unemployment roles are false. They only report those that are unemployed and recieving benefits, not those who are unemployed and not recieving benefits any longer. My son was getting unemployment and he hasn't found a job yet. Even though the funds are gone as of 6 weeks ago. He had to move back home.

Because they are only TEMPORARY jobs, that last less than 2 months time. Then all those people will be unemployed again. Also, the big deal is the wage per hour they are paying these people who don't even need an education to partake. $19.50 an hour!!!! That's right! $19.50 an hour!!! PLUS mileage!!! When the government is running the show, it's gotta be extravagant!!!

OOOOh I love kittens. Do you have children that you can share this experience with? Just curious. My grandson (5) loves our cat, and my son just brought a kitten home, all white, 2 weeks ago.