pattygreen

And, Obama did not discuss anything with Republicans during his forst year in office. He didn't have to. (Now he does, though) Most of the time the Democrats dominated congress. So, unlike many of his predecessors, he didn't have to bother "reaching across the aisle" to accomplish whatever he wanted to. And on the few occasions he did speak to the republicans, he misspoke or misrepresented or outright lied. This is why he is reluctantly speaking to them now. He knows that the people have turned on him and his agenda, and he 'needs' them now. His attempts to include both parties now will not make up for the year that he felt he could diss them and trot full steam ahead whether they liked what he was proposing or not.

I couldn't wait to hear your rant about the paper I read. How did I know?

That's my local paper, and I read it almost every day. They have great letters to the editor and opinion pages.

Thankyou for your kindness towards me. I apppreciate it because I am usually the lone ranger on many issues, and not respected because I differ in my opinions. I didn't get angry with you at all for anything you posted. I simply had something that I wanted to post that was an abortion issue, so I changed the subject by putting in that reminder. Of course we can vere off onto any topic we want to. I don't have any qualms about that at all. We all seem to talk on many different threads together, so it is understandable that these different topics intertwine, and I'm okay with it. As for Bush helping me, I can't say that the federal government helps me much. Maybe the break in my taxes for my children brought down my annual income that was to be taxed, but I think we've always had that, and we had 7 of our 10 children to claim until they became adults. My husband and I do very well financially. I thank God for our blessings. So, I don't know how Bush has helped me personally. I can see how He added to our national debt. And I can see how Obama is doing more of the same, even worse than Bush did. I want you to know that I respect your differing views as well. I listen to Glenn Beck alot. I agree with him most of the time, and that is why I continue to listen to him, as well as most of America. He may be a little flighty or robust in his delivery, but it is still MY opinion that he brings forth, so I like him. You'll notice that MSNBC's ratings have plummeted and it is because of their far, far, left liberal views on controversial issues. I am a registered republican, but I am going to change to an independent voter. The only thing is voting in the primaries. As an independent, I'm not sure if you can vote for those running republican or democratic. Do you know?

"Over budget" are familar words in government, and so it will be with pres. Obama's "stimulus". Despite having $787 billion at his disposal, Obama is on course to spend $862 billion because he is laying out an extra $75 billion to pay people not to work, on top of the hundreds of billions to indemnify government payrolls. This latest failure might be the cherry on top of the "stimulus", which did not keep unemployment under 8% as the pres. promised and did not stimulate economic growth. But it had some measure of success. It stimulated $862 billion, and counting, in new gov. debt for future generations to repay.

This is an abortion thread, so I'm back on that topic. A superbowl ad featuring Tim Tebow has driven the pro-abortion left into panic mode. Abortion rights advocates and those who earn their living in the clinics fear this type of commenatry for the same reason they fear legislation in some states that require abortion doctors to show would-be patients sonograms of their unborn babies: Putting a human face on a "fetus" is pure poison to the abortion industry!

...............................................

I was talking about his old plan that got dissed, thank God, because you were. Jobs bill? What a joke. Don't you mean another 'stimulus'? The jobs bill would use $75 billion in money earmarked for the Wall Street bailout and redirect it to infrastructure investment and aid to states. SPEND!!!!! some more. The money will go to temporary, (yes, temporary cause when the money is gone, so is the job) government jobs to people and give more things that states don't "need" to them while we are under economic stress!

It doesn't say in the bill that those making $250,000+ will be paying for it, either. How to pay the bill is not in the bill. That's a whole nother matter. Obama had told us that the rich would pay for it, but they are not the ONLY ones who would have paid for it. There simply just aren't enough rich people in this country to pay for the HC of the whole nation.

Liberals like the idea that the government will take care of them. I believe it is their security and they need to know that they have that backup because they are not willing to be responsible for themselves. It's a valid fear, I guess.

The CBO is not going to project the deficit increases in 2020. They are going to answer the question: "Will the HC public option increase the deficit?" No. You need to ask them the 2nd half of the question: "Will the HC public option increase the deficit in 2020, after 10 years?? YES!!!! This pull from a CNN article will tell you that the bill would have had a deficit reduction (within the first 10 years) But will not tell you what will definitely happen after that. But, if you could do any form of 5th grade math, you would be able to see that without that 5 years of putting aside the tax revenue for it first, it would have never been able to reduce anything.

National Debt Now Tops $12 Trillion - Political Hotsheet - CBS News I apologize. I read it too fast and got the wrong number. I found it at this website.It does state this however. The latest high-point is not unexpected, considering the federal deficit for the just-ended 2009 fiscal year hit an all-time high at $1.42-trillion – more than triple the previous year's record high.

I have just decided that unless you can be civil with me, I will not respond to your posts. I do not stoop low and call you names or belittle you or disrespect you, and I don't deserve it from you. You will need to apologize before I talk to you again.

I don't have a tatoo. And I don't want one. The scripture does teach that we should not mark up our bodies with tatoos. If we have, it's not a fatality. I mean, it's not going to keep you out of Heaven or anything. :thumbup:

My faith is not blind. I can see clearly now. Before I was blind. Now I see and understand. If it were not for the law, mankind would not know that he were sinning. It would be every man for himself. "If you feel it's okay, then it's okay." But when the law came into being, then mankind knew right from wrong. Our conscience, if God walks with us, tells us right from wrong, also. If he doesn't walk with us, then the devil will speak to our hearts and tempt us or tell us it is okay when it's not. Just as he did with Eve in the garden. "Did God really say that you could not eat from the tree?"

It was talked about for a long time. How the people would start paying for Obama's public option plan as soon as the bill was passed, but coverage wouldn't begin until AFTER 5 years have passed by. If we started paying for it in 2010, (saving up 5 years of income and not using it) and began recieving the care from it in 2015, (and was still collecting the same rate from the people for those 5 years), how could we continue to have the same great coverage 5 years later (in 2020 and beyond) when we are not taking in the same amount of money? We are only bringing in 1/2 of what we had. ( we will have used up the savings that was collected in the first 5 years before the HC services actually began, plus the incoming monies) The only way to get the same treatment as in the first 5 years of the program is to raise the premiums (tax) If we don't raise them, we would have had to ration the care. This is where they got the idea of rationed care and a deficit increase. Now, this does not have to be written down somewhere and 'proven', for the people to forsee what would happen in the future (after the first 10 years)when there was no more saved up money and not enough revenue coming in to meet the HC payments going out. Any moron could figure it out. Obama was being truthful when he told you that it would not increase the deficit. He just conveniently left out the latter half of the sentence, "until 2020." He should have said, "It will not increase the deficit until 2020."

The premiums for the gov. run ins. would cost less than the premiums for the private ins. companies. This is true because the gov. is not trying to make a profit. But, like I stated before, that would only be for the first 5 years after it has begun. AFTER that, the premiums would raise more than the private ins. companies would have been because they won't have enough funds to pay for it. They would HAVE to raise the premiums for the HC, or else start rationing the care. Do I need to reprint my past post about how the HC bill would have been paid for?:glare:

There isn't much that the government runs that isn't bankrupt and/or taxing the crap out of us, or is costing way, way more than the private industry can do it for.

where does it tell you in the constitution that you can kill life?

NOW there isn't! But I thought we were talking about the past proposed HC bill.