pattygreen

You are a Christian, a believer in Jesus as your Savior, therefore, you are a born againer, too. At one point in your life, you know when that was, you made a conscious decision to believe in God. You try to live the way you believe He would want you to,even though you fail sometimes, you forgive others when they wrong you, and you pray and talk to God. That is a relationship.

The process sometimes results in embryos being discarded. a doctor will transfer embryos to the woman's uterus with the hope that at least one will implant. The ones that don't implant die. (aborted) There are situations in which multiple embryos will survive and grow. At that point the couple will have to decide whether to abort or carry multiple children. Some choose to abort all but the amount they want. This would be wrong. So, if ANY fetus' are killed (or frozen) in the process, it is wrong, IMO. God set up a plan for male and female to marry and start a family together. I tend to think that if that couple can't bare children of their own, then they should be childless until God opens her womb. If he doesn't, then it is because he intended her to be childless. Or he intended her to adopt orphans. To God, every human being is loved the same by Him, therefore, if he intends for you to raise a child of your own, you will, and if he intends for you to to be barren, then you may take in orphans. This is just my view. I don't know how God would feel about invitro fertilization. Because the woman is married to her husband, yet using the sperm of another man. She isn't committing adultry, so He may not object. But the man who poured out his sperm to donate it had to masturbate, and 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. At least IVF is making life and not ending it, like abortion does.

Some of us were talking about God on this thread, and I believe, uh.... you "came around" to talk with us. Not that I mind, mind you, but to say that we are the ones who look for you's, is just not always right.

Why do you say I am mean? I'm not mean. Even so, I had to laugh also.

So, we should punish people who commit crimes? Cause if the laws are made to punish criminals, like you say, then it's the right thing to do. When a man robs someone he should get punished. When a woman shoots her neighbor, she should be punished. So, then if abortions are illegal, and women have them any way, according to your belief, they should get punished. WOW! Something we agree on!

Not true. I have a millionaire friend. She got wealthy from working hard and long hours on her farm. She sold the food she and her hired hands produced. She saved all her money. I know another millionaire lady who was a single woman and was a school teacher. She lived frugally and saved all her money all her life. She was 96 when she died. Her family had no idea she was that wealthy, cause she didn't live like it. My mother ion law worked for her taking care of her at the end of her life. Even if they invested their money and it grew, what business is that of yours. We are all allowed to make our money grow through investments. That's like gambling your money. If the investment pays off, you win. If it doesn't, you lose. That's the chance you take with your money. People who are born into money are no different than anyone else. We all have a right to leave our money to our children.

2 points of yours that I underlined above I'd like to address. The first being about parents not supporting homework. I always felt that children are taken from their parents home for 7-8 hours 5 days a week by the governments demand and then when they get home, and can spend time with their families, the school wants them to do MORE school work. I always hated homework. What the heck are they doing in school, that they can't get it all done in 7-8 hours. I homeschooled my kids from grade 5 or 8 through highschool, and it took only 2 hours, sometimes 3 at the most to finish all their subjects. They all graduated with high honors and are doing great in college. So, their education was not lacking. If teachers can't get the kids to do their work in the time they are there, too bad for them. When my kids got home from school, that was now OUR time. The other point was how parents are afraid of their kids. Well, that's the liberals doing. If parents were allowed by law to discipline their children in the way that was best for them, there wouldn't be that threat of your kid calling the police on them for it. I am all for spanking children (and then hugging them and talking about it) as a form of discipline when they are under the age of approx. 6 or 7, depending on the child. All of my children were given spankings (not BEATINGS) when they were small as a form of discipline. If they stole something from the store, and I found out later, they would receive a spanking for it. Then we would talk to them about the wrongs of taking things that don't belong to them. We would also tell them that our love was unconditional. Then restitution came in. They would be required to apologize to the store owner and return the item, or work at home to earn the money to repay the store if the item was eaten already. As they got older, spanking faded away and loss of priviledges worked better. If I see a child in a store whining, it really irritates me that the mom doesn't remove the child from the store, go home and spank him. Then tell him that if he expected to have the priviledge of shopping with her, that whining would not be an option. If every time he whined in a store, she did that, she could end her miserable shopping trips. What's wrong with parents these days? they let their kids rule them.

How ridiculus!!!! I have 30 patients that I care for on my wing at the convelescent home. Should I multiply my hourly wage by 30?

I'm a CNA in a nursing home.

There was a time when morals were higher and you wouldn't hear a liberal say that they felt same sex people should be allowed to marry. This has changed over time due to immoral teachings and philosophies. Generations of immoral living and indoctrination brought us to where we are today. Men having sex with men and women having sex with women is an abomination to the Lord. God has allowed their immorality to go haywire. In Romans chapter 1, it says that because mankind exchanged the truth of God for a lie, he gave them over to their shameful lusts. (notice God calls it a 'lust', and a lust is a desire. You're not born gay. You 'desire' to have sex with men.) 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts (God's words, not mine)with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (again, God's words. he calls it perversion) 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. (in other words, "fine, you don't want to know me, do your own thing." (but just remember, there will be consequences for every choice we make in life) Don't worry about no liberals saying they want to make laws allowing siblings to marry. Give it another generation, we're getting there.

And you're a liberal sheep following Cleo's every word straight to the slaughter.

[quote} What's that sound I hear? Why it's the conservatives, teabaggers and elected republicans howling about that possibility. Standing up for the rich, as usual. Is there something wrong with being rich? All people are born into this world with nothing. Each has their own opportunity and incentive in life to work hard or be creative and build an empire if he desires, or to live in a cabin in the woods on the bare minimum if he so chooses. What's wrong with being rich?

Yes I do! And I just did it! The CBO is YOUR truth about your beloved, trustworthy and faithful government that you depend on for your very being. That's why when they justify my points, I will use them to show you how wrong you were! They are who you trust. BTW, they are just another government agency. But one that you trust for facts.

My plans could fall apart, you're right. But at least I could say they were my plans, and not the governments.

People who have a moral sense don't steal, lie, or murder only because there are laws against those things. They don't do them because they're wrong. You want to legislate morality not because you think it will change one's morals (it won't) but for the punishment end of it. That's what I have been saying on all my posts. That's what you are interested in. Not the behavior, but the punishment. Just because "someone will do it" anyway isn't a good enough reason to not have a law against it. Parents make rules that they want their kids to abide by, knowing full well that they may not always follow them, they do it because it is the right thing to do. They make consequences for when they break the rules, because it is the right thing to do. Law makers need to do the same thing. Whether the people always follow the laws is irrelivent. There will always be people who do not obey all the laws out there. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make any. When a society leaves out laws of morality, they condone it and thus the society becomes more and more immoral. The next step after allowing gay marriages is to allow marriages between siblings, and then marriages between man and animals. Hey, if it's something that a person wants to do, who are we to say it's wrong? right? That's a liberals philosophy. A society must set limits on moral standards, or the moral standards of a society go down the tube over generations.

I don't have any problem being truthful about why I'm against the things I am against. NONE at all. I'm against abortions because the life in the womb is just that, a real live human being, that God has a plan for. Abortions kill off that life. What's untruthful about that? Just because there are penalties, consequences and jail time for breaking laws, does not mean that THAT is my reason for being against abortion or any other issue that I'm against. What a lame reason to place opon conservatives for their hatred of sinful acts. "Oh yeah, we just want to put people in jail and make them 'pay' and we just want to punish people.":rolleyes: You just don't have any good 'reason' to refute the fact that conservatives are mostly against immorality. So, you have to come up with "It's because they want to punish people." Oh brother!

I'll say it again, this time short and sweet so you don't have to strain your eyes to read all the proof I presented: The CBO DIRECTOR, Elmendorf, Made a presentation that obliterates the claims of the President and his allies about the effects of the new laws on federal health spending and the budget.

That's right. Just ignore the proof I gave you concerning the "true" cost of HC, and its effects for Americans and continue to post your lies.

Liberals have problems with consequences for actions taken.

CBO Director Elmendorf destroys a core Presidential health care argument 28 May Print this CBO Director Dr. Douglas Elmendorf has posted the slides he used in a presentation Wednesday to the Institute of Medicine, titled “Health Costs and the Federal Budget.” The presentation obliterates the claims of the President and his allies about the effects of the new laws on federal health spending and the budget. For months the President and his Budget Director correctly argued that the goal of health care reform was to “bend the cost curve down.” The projected path of per capita health spending is unsustainable and will result in three bad outcomes: those with health insurance will have less money available for other needs; it will be harder for the uninsured to buy insurance; and government spending on Medicare and Medicaid will break federal and state budgets. Here is the President at the Blair House: The third thing it seems — I assume we can all agree on is that over the last decade costs have doubled for health care in America — costs have doubled for government-provided health care, but everybody’s health care. And that that meant that right now everybody knows that that wrecks budgets, it wrecks state budget, it wrecks family budgets, it wrecks federal budgets. Every 35 cents of every dollar spent on health care is spent by the federal government or the state governments for Medicare and Medicaid — 35 cents on the dollar. That doesn’t count veterans and other things, just those two. And so — and what’s happened is — on the dollar, on every health care dollar. And so we’re facing, all of us around this table, Democrat and Republicans, are facing the fact that there’s $919 billion now we’re spending on Medicare and the federal portion of Medicaid, and that if things — I don’t see any firewall is going to keep costs from doubling again, we’re going to be talking about in the year 2019 we’re going to be spending $1.7 trillion if we don’t do something to bend that curve. A common refrain from the President and his Budget Director was “health care reform is entitlement reform.” And through two budget cycles, when senior Administration officials were pressed on their plans for deficit reduction, they always returned to the argument that health care reform would substantially improve the federal budget outlook. CBO Director Dr. Douglas Elmendorf has shown this argument to be incorrect. This is the best and most direct presentation I have seen on the subject. I commend Dr. Elmendorf for his honesty, clarity and bluntness. I wish he had been this blunt and this clear in February and March before these bills became law. Here is Dr. Elmendorf’s first slide. Emphasis is mine. The Challenge Rising health costs will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond. In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure. Here he shows the effects on Medicare spending of the two new health care laws, as well as the effect if Congress permanently extends a Medicare “doctors’ fix” like the “temporary” one being considered in the House today. The light blue line represents Medicare spending before the new laws, the dark blue line after the new laws, and the dotted line is the new laws plus a permanent doc fix. You can see that there is net Medicare savings even with a permanent doc fix, but the unsustainable spending growth still exists. And this is the part of the federal government where they “cut” (slowed the growth of) spending to pay for part of the new health care subsidies. Now Dr. Elmendorf shows us the effects of the new laws on spending for Medicaid, CHIP, and the new health insurance subsidies You can see how the new spending line (in light blue) is an enormous increase over the baseline spending in dark blue. OK, now let’s examine the net effects of the two laws. Since the dark blue bars are roughly the same height as the combination of the light blue bars, the net deficit effect shown by the line is right about zero. Congressional Democratic leaders optimized to maximize coverage and minimize political pain from spending cuts and tax increases without increasing the deficit. Had they instead focused on the the President’s stated priority of “bending the cost curve down,” this graph would have looked quite different. The deficit reduction boasted about by the Administration and its allies is trivially small. Dr. Elmendorf is direct: The legislation will increase [the federal budgetary commitment to health care] by nearly $400 B during the 2010-2019 period but reduce it in the following decade. The legislation will reduce budget deficits by about $140 billion during the 2010-2019 period and by an amount in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP during the following decade. Q: How can both these statements be true? Over the next decade, how can the new laws increase the federal budgetary commitment to health care while reducing the deficit? A: By redirecting non-health dollars to health. The increased Medicare payroll taxes on “the rich” are the best example. These laws devote more federal resources to health care. We were supposed to move the other way and devote less. On February 23, 2009, the President said: In the coming years, we’ll be forced to make more tough choices and do much more to address our long-term challenges, from the rising cost of health care that Peter described, which is the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far, to the long-term solvency of Social Security. Once again Dr. Elmendorf debunks this claim that “it’s all about health cost growth.” This graph shows that, at least for the next decade, most of the growth in federal entitlement spending is the result of aging. Excess cost growth of health spending is a critically important but secondary factor. Finally, here is Dr. Elmendorf’s concluding slide. Emphasis again is mine. Putting the federal budget on a sustainable path would almost certainly require a significant reduction in the growth of federal health spending relative to current law (including this year’s health legislation). Never before have I seen a CBO Director so bluntly refute the policy claims of a President and his Budget Director.

<LI class=first nodeIndex="1">Resize:<LI class="small alt" nodeIndex="2">A<LI class=medium nodeIndex="3">A<LI class="large last alt" nodeIndex="4">AIn Their Own Words: CBO Admits Obamacare Unsustainable Posted May 28th, 2010 at 4:15pm in Health Care with 15 comments Print This Post This Wednesday CBO Director Doug Elmendorf gave a slide presentation on Capitol Hill titled: Health Costs and the Federal Budget. Elemendorf’s very first slide reads: Rising health costs will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond. In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure. The presentation concludes: Putting the federal budget on a sustainable path would almost certainly require a significant reduction in the growth of federal health spending relative to current law (including this year’s health legislation). In other words, our nation’s budget is on an unsustainable path and Obamacare did nothing to change that.