pattygreen

Get real! Not just your cell phone. Everything!

Excellent post. And, as you stated, while you may not agree with every thing I post, I certainly agree with you on this one. I, too, am not against a hand up, and am glad that the government is there to help those who need it. I was one of them at one time in my life. The problem is that it is TOO much now. The government has grown increasingly powerful and intrusive as well as financially indebted. We are talking about a debt of close to $170,000. per household. That is unsustainable! Cleo's often portrays me as one who doesn't want to help the poor or the elderly because I am against government handouts. This is not true. Some government help is fine. But, where we are at today with "so called" help is a farce. Obama himself admits his goals straight forward. He wants to redistribute the wealth around. Some who live in an apartment and rent and live paycheck to paycheck and are just getting by are not happy with that. I wouldn't be either. I lived that way once. We were at the bottom, but we (or anyone else) didn't have to stay there. We worked real hard, counted and saved every penny, sacrificed alot of 'wants' and even 'needs' to save for a multifamily house. I could never afford to pay a mortgage without rental income to help, so we sacrificed and lived with people over us, but, we still owned our own home, and we were proud of it. I saved for school and my husband worked long, hard hours and we eventually were able to buy a second multi family home right next door to ours, and now that's almost paid off as well. Our retirement should be okay due to the rental property and our 401K's and savings we pay into, even if SS is not there for us in 15 years. Some people start off sacrificing everything they have to start their businesses and then build up for themselves a great company and deserve to have their big expensive homes and be able to purchase things like HI and Life ins. and fancy cars or whatever they feel like buying. Obama feels that if you are rich, then you need to give some of that to those who are not. And, if you are poor, the government will make sure that you are cared for by coersion and thievery from those who are rich. This is sooooo wrong. Even if you feel that rich people should not be selfish or that rich people should 'share'. It's no ones place to tell anyone (rich or poor) what to do with their money that they worked hard to get. I am not rich by any means. I am comfortable and content, I guess. But I wasn't always. I know how it is to be both very poor and financially secure. I am not against paying taxes at all. I understand the need for them. Waterbury, CT is a big city in my state. That city is in so much debt. Their property taxes are already the highest in the state, but now they need to raise them because they have a budget crisis that they can't find the funds for. This will cost on average another $2000. a year for homeowners there. They can't find the funds? How about cutting some of the big spending and doing some state layoffs or getting rid of the humongus pensions that those who retired recieve? It's always bleed the citizens dry! Never cut the spending! Did you ever hear of a government program that ended? I haven't. Obama has no right to redistribute the funds. They're not his.

If you were speaking of the militants, then that was my mistake. sorry. I thought you were talking about another group.

When companies have to pay out more (such as more tax) they pass the expense in the way of higher prices down to the consumer. Period. They WILL still make their profit. It is YOU and I who will pay that tax for them in the way of higher cost of living.

Yeah right.:frown: He is allowing all those people to be killed over there. He could get them home today, as commander in Chief of the armed forces, but he chooses to let them die! He wants war!:smile2:

I did not defend them. Don't put words in my mouth. I was speaking of those who threw a rock or those who were at meetngs and got loud. You know, the ones you liked to label "terrorists".

Maybe that's because unlike the few who post on these forums they know they are not terrorists, but angry constituients who were ignored by their congressmen and steamrolled by this administration to do what they did not want.

The "hidden costs" will not be limited to increased taxes, but will also show up in increased process costs for products and services. Those ancillary costs are never calculated by the CBO, a fact which is noted in their projections. And, of course, the CBO heavily disclaimed their report and the "assumptions" foisted on them by ObamaCare's architects.

Thanks to ObamaCare, the IRS alone is poised to hire 16,500 new agents, who will act as the bill's "enforcement agency." When Nancy Pelosi said that healthcare reform would create 40,000 new jobs immediately, we didn't realize that almost half of them would be IRS agents! And this is just the beginning. There are literally scores of new bureaucracies listed in the 2,700 pages of the President's final bill. The ancillary costs of this government takeover will far exceed what was projected by its sponsors. The effects of ObamaCare are already being calculated in the private sector. According to the Wall Street Journal, ObamaCare's cost to American corporations could reach $14 billion this year! Companies like AT&T, John Deere, MedTronic, AK Steel, 3M, Caterpillar, and Valero Energy have already counted the cost to their bottom line for the upcoming year - and the effects are staggering. Of course, American citizens will ultimately pay the price for these rising costs.

We will remember the tyranny, the power grab, the overt manipulation, the backroom deals, the closed-door sessions,the condescension toward the American people, the disenfranchising of constituents, the steamrolling of the legislative process, the subversion of the Constitution, and the outright disregard of the rule of law in NOVEMBER! I can't wait for the elections to come. Yeah!

For the record, that 'monologue', as Leigha calls it, had nothing to do with my faith. Facts are facts. Whether you like them or not.

Okay, then why aren't you fighting for your "constitutional' rights of good fortune, prosperity and happiness? If that's what general welfare means. I want good fortune! I want happiness! I want prosperity! It is my constitutional right! (according to Leigha) You took out "health" from that definition of welfare, but overlooked the rest of what welfare means. If the definition of welfare means "to make available" good fortune, then the government owes me some. It should PROVIDE me with prosperity and happiness, too! Can't you see how ridiculous that is? The government is not responsible to PROVIDE you with anything. If the definition of welfare is to make available "health" for people, then we have already done this and the HC bill is not needed. Health care is available for all. Just go out and purchase some insurance. There, it's available for you. Where does it say they have to make it affordable for you? Or where does it say they should buy it for you? The government should make available to everybody the opportunity to pursue anything they desire in life. They should do this by allowing free enterprise and by not suffocating people in business with their laws and regulations and rules and taxations.

I'm sure your President feels the same way as you do, so why doesn't he pull them out of there? He should end this war right now. What the heck is his problem?

Where did you get the idea that this land belonged to the indians? Merely living on a land does not confirm ownership. The indians had lived here for hundreds of years but were still living in crude homes; eating and warming themselves over an open fire; and letting their old people die alone without help. They had access to all the gold, silver, iron, water, trees, etc. that the white man had, yet it was the white man who built the greatest, most advanced society in the world. Their record is not a clean one, but nevertheless, saying that the land belonged to the indian and was taken by the white man is not true. The only land the indians owned was was the land they cleared, lived on and cultivated. To suggest that the indians owned the whole country cause they rode around on it on horseback is bull. Most, if not all, Indian tribes did not believe in a personal ownership of land. They did not consider a plot of ground theirs to be passed on to a son, but ground that was owned by the tribe for the good of all. This same attitude was held toward food. If a brave took a bison or deer in a hunt, it did not belong to him, but the tribe. The shallow thinker says, "That's magnanimous and unselfish." but it is also socialism and could be one reason why the indians were living substantially the same way when Columbus arrived as they had lived five hundred years earlier.

I feel that everyone has a right to worship whom they please or no one at all. Even God gives everyone this right to make a choice. But, I must confess, that it does bother me to know that those who don't put their faith in Jesus will not live in Heaven at the end of time. So, to say I don't care what 'religion' people are is a far stretch. I do care, for their sakes.

The word in the constitution is PROMOTE general welfare, not PROVIDE general welfare. But, if it did say provide general welfare, then you propose that the government give us all a good fortune, and provide us with happiness and prosperity? You also want the government to provide your moral welfare? For if that's the definition of welfare, then why stop at that? Why not all the welfare of the people? prosperity, happiness, good fortune, and morals. The word was promote.

Not true. I don't "favor' anyone. I just know that the government is NOT the answer, it's the problem.

The full Preamble reads: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The Framers of the Constitution were VERY PRECISE in their wording. They wanted to “establish Justice“…and so they set up the court system. They wanted to “insure domestic Tranquility“, and so set up articles in the Constitution that described how the States would interact, etc. They wanted to “provide for the common defence“, and so they set up the Army and the Navy. But the “general Welfare” phrase is preceded by the word: “promote“. “Promote”, as in “encourage”. Kind of like when the Declaration says people have the right to the PURSUIT of happiness. Thus they did NOT establish a welfare system. The Left’s argument that “promote the general Welfare” justifies ObamaCare, actually does EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE!!

These things I say are straight from the word of God himself. I'm not making them up. I have studied the bible for most of my life, and have learned alot about him.

This fairytale of Obamacare lowering the deficit is a big fat joke on the dems part. Obama scammed them!

Yes, ANY business. When you make laws that affect Businesses like Enron, they also effect smaller business and that could mean going OUT of business for them.

Also in the bill is increased taxes on R&D for new drugs and medical equipment. Plus, for an added bonus, although an executive order presently prohibits funding in the bill from paying for abortions, President Obama can (and will) reverse that with a "stroke of the pen." So your tax dollars will go to pay for other people's abortions, something most people find reprehensible. Basically, in lean times where there are lots of people looking for work - such as right now - its going to be too attractive for businesses to take the far cheaper route of dropping health insurance plans for their workers which cost thousands of dollars each and simply paying the $750 fine. When economic times get better, some day, the competition between businesses for good workers will make that less attractive but for now? Don't be surprised to see your company "tighten its belt" at the expense of your present health care plan. Doubling this effect is the fact that this bill requires health care packages to cover many things you may not care about or even want. That means each individual package for businesses becomes more expensive. In fact it means you can't keep your present health care plan unless it covers all the stuff this bill forces you to take as coverage. Which means cheaper plans get more expensive. Missing in this bill? Coverage for dentures, making the goofy story about a woman wearing her sister's dentures irrelevant to the entire discussion. But hey, the Democrats did succeed in building a bipartisan coalition: one opposing the bill. (Christopher Taylor)

If you're wondering why so many people seem so upset about the Health care bill the Democrats have forced on unwilling Americans, I can give you some ideas. The first and foremost problem is that this is a huge spending bill when the US is already massively in debt. Another major concern is that congress spent about a year working on this when its not even a top 10 priority for Americans, jobs are. The third, and most important, major concern is that the US Constitution in no place permits the US government to deal with health care or health insurance at any level.

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014). 19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015). That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402). 20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed "unreasonable" by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003) 15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (). 16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (:frown:). The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405). 17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 ( (1) (A and .)