pattygreen

and concerning the above list: I dont care if it's Bush, Obama, or the M$M guy in Washington who is doing all this unnecessary spending. It is being done and OBAMA is the one in charge now, and continues to spend, spend, spend!!!!!

Why is it that when you are talking to liberals about the present situation, they have to bring up what past presidents have done. Who cares? The past can't be changed. Just because Bush spent a lot of money makes it okay for Obama to outdo him in his spending? NO! A business owner has to spend money to make money, but the government is not in that field, so where do they get off spending our money to make money? So, what you say in untrue. The government doesn't need to spend money to make money. They get their money from US. I don't have any problem with our government spending money to defend this nation. As a matter of fact, anything financially that our servicemen and women need, I feel should be given to them. It's wasteful, unnecessary spending I can't condone.

I never said I wished Bush would have continued running this country. I wish we could get someone in there who doesn't have a hole in his pocket! Cause every American's change is falling through it!

Even Satan claims to know Jesus. But to know of him is one thing to actually know him is another. There is corruption everywhere you turn, and yes even in the christian churches. That doesn't make God any less real, it only makes our dependence on him imminent.

I'm glad someone is ecstatic about the Humongous unsustainable debt he's given us! YES, Obama's given us. He has spent more money in a time of national depression than can even be fathomed as real, yet it is real!

Those who protest were just anti-Bush. Their reasons ring hollow and hypocritical. These are people who didn't and never would vote for him and just wanted him to fail. ................................................................................... Talk about hypocritical! Liberals proteseted against Bush in the same way. Let's face it.... There are just two "as far apart as can be" views on morals and policies in this country. Liberals have their ideas, and conservatives have theirs. The 2 shall never agree because one is soooooo far from the other in their thinking.

As it should. No one should get money from the government to care for them if they have assets. The need to enter a nursing home usually (not always)means you can no longer care for yourself, and probably wont be able to any more until death. This is why an elderly person should live with his or her child. The parent moves into the childs home. Either holds onto or sells his home and uses his money from the sale of his home or his SS check or other assets by giving it to the child in return for caring for them. (better yet,if they can afford it, they should care for their parents for free simply because they should) This is better than giving their home to the state to give $10,000. a month to the convelescent home, (at that rate, their money won't go very far to help care for them.) and when it's gone rather quickly, the rest of society will have to pick up the tab for their care. Also, if a parent has a child, and is in need of assisted living or personal care, why should they spend 7-10,000. a month for a self pay home. That's an awful lot of money for someone who just needs assistance. for crying out loud kids, just assist your parents! After all, have you forgotten about how they assisted you from birth through adulthood. This is the problem with government handouts. If a person knows that someone else will foot the bill and the problem could get solved without inconveniencing them, they will dump it on someone else. (the government) I say, tell all kids to prepare for their parents old age because it's on them! Families are supposed to take care of each other. Why should I pay for anyone elses parents care through my tax dollars? There are many, many examples of this wasted tax money and it's not just in caring for the elderly who should be cared for by their own children. Now, I know that in your case, you were not capable to care for your parents, in these instances, the state should pay. If the state would only pay for the people who absolutely have no other option, then that could save tax dollars for them. This is what the gov. needs to do. Stop all the unnecessary waste.

50 Examples of Government Waste here is an example of government waste!

The outrage of millions of taxpayers following the $700 billion bank bailout and the $787 billion stimulus bill did not stop Congress from passing and President Obama from signing a bloated $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations Act in March. With the subsequent approval of the President’s budget, the national debt will triple over the next 10 years. That leaves plenty of opportunities for pork to remain pervasive in the nation’s capital. The fiscal year 2009 appropriations process was unique as three of the appropriations bills (Defense, Homeland Security and Military Construction) were passed and signed on September 30, 2008 under a different Congress and President. But the change in control in the White House did not change the culture of corruption that surrounds pork-barrel spending. Among the many story lines that played out during the crafting and eventual passing of the Omnibus Act was that former Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) had his name eliminated from the nine appropriations bills in the Omnibus, yet a deceased member, former members, and Cabinet members remained. If the new Congress had time to scrub Sen. Stevens’ name from the Omnibus, they surely had plenty of time to scrub the bill of all earmarks. The latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 19-year exposé of pork-barrel spending includes $3,800,000 for the Old Tiger Stadium Conservancy; $1,900,000 for the Pleasure Beach Water taxi service project; and $1,791,000 for swine odor and manure management research. In fiscal year 2009, Congress stuffed 10,160 projects into the 12 appropriations bills worth $19.6 billion. The projects represent a 12.5 percent decrease from the 11,610 projects in fiscal year 2008. The $19.6 billion is a 14 percent increase over the fiscal year 2008 total of $17.2 billion, belying claims of reduced spending. Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $290 billion. I could go on and list all of their wasteful expedatures, but you get it. http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2009/

Another "all or nothing" approach. I said the "Vast Majority" of aged people could be cared for by their children. NOT ALL . Also, I know that ALL people don't have children. The State pays for many aged people by putting them in convelescent homes and assuming the bill for them. If society foreknew that the responsibility for their aged parents was theirs, they would HAVE to plan and prepare for it. I work in a home (I've worked in quite a few of them over the last 30 years) and I know that a great majority of them could be cared for at home with the help of a child, or family member. I also have done the 'caring' part in my own home for an elderly woman and I will care for my own parents and my husbands when and if they need it as well. I'm not a rich person, both of us work. I make $400. a week full time. If my mom needs me, I'll quit my job and she will supplement my income with her SS check, or the sale of her home. $400 a week X 52 weeks is $20,800. a year. That's better than her paying 10,000. for 2 months of care in a convelescent home. Her profit from her home would be eaten up in the first year there. Then the State would have to start paying for her. If society would stop putting the burden for the care of their parents onto the state, it would save much needed funds. Now, I'm not saying that the state shouldn't pay for 'some' of the elderly, just not the VAST majority of them who should, and could live with their children. Many people feel that it is NOT their responsibility to care for their parents, and I say that it is, cause it's not mine, and why should I have to pay for anyone else's parents care with my tax dollars. This is the problem in America. Everyone wants everyone else to give them a free handout. Elder care, is just one tiny fraction of the money that is given away. It is soooo miniscule compared to all the other give aways of our money to society, that it seems foolish to talk about it, but when all of these miniscule handouts are added together, they make up a large sum of money that the government hands out.

Our image, our relationship with other countries, and his family? You are content with that? I am just a regular old citizen here and could accomplish that. You should see my family, they're wonderful. But it doesn't do anything for the country he is supposed to be running.

I agree wholeheartedly!!! Congress does pass the laws, and Congress has been mostly democratic for all these years. They are the ones we need to find new jobs for.

{QUOTE}Therefore, the protestants, unitarians and united church of Christ ministers are not good christians because they have differences in their beliefs? The point was that the bible is God's word, and if you 're a Christian, and believe any differently than what it says, you are not right in what you believe. These differing christian denominations do not use the book as their guideline for thier statements of faith or their stand on issues, mainly because mankind has it within himself to desire to do as he sees fit and if someone (God)disagrees with what they want to do or what they find acceptable , they will start a new church (another denomination) where what they feel is okay is accepted. This is why we have so many denominations in our faith. Men sin. period. They want to be allowed to sin, yet they also want to be 'good' christians, so they attend where their 'sins' will be accepted. God fortold that this would happen in the bible in 2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when men would not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires. they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." A fine example of this is in a certain denomination that will allow Gay clergy to preach from their pulpits. It says that homosexuality is a sin in the bible. It also states the requirements for being a preacher of the word. Someone who is upright and a good example to his congregation. The gay community don't want to call their actions sinful, because it is their desire to have sex with the same sex, yet, their are some who want to be Christians. So they find a church where their sin is accepted, and now, they have others who are committing the same sin validating their lifestyle and so, they feel they are 'good.' When in 'fact,' they are not living as 'good' Christians.

P. Kennedy, D-R.I., says that he is prochoice, but still a good catholic. The Bishop begs to differ. Traditional prolife catholics are supporting the bishop while liberal dems and much of the main stream media (suddenly showing a deep reverence toward matters of faith, who knew?) are claiming the bishop is out of line. A Providence newspaper printed various opinions of citizens. Regarding politicians who are pro-abortion and yet claim to be good christians. One resident was quoted as saying,"If they believe they're a good Christian, whose to say they're not?' That captures the spirit of our age. Moral relativism. If someone believes something to be true then it must be true for him. Facts be damned. What other core principles of christianity can be rejected and still allow a person to be a good christian? If someone rejects the authority of the Pope, can he still be a good Catholic? (These people are usually known as protestants) What about someone who does not believe in Jesus' divinity? (They're usually called Unitarians) What if some one does not believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead? They're called United Church of Christ ministers) What if someone does not believe that God even exist? (these people are usually called talk show hosts on MSNBC) The answer to these is Yes. According to moral relativism, it doesn't matter if you believe all or some or none of the words in the bible. As long as you feel you are a good christian, you are. A college professor reports the diversity movement took over higher education in earnest in the 1990's, with students being taught the joys of multiculturalism and the notion it is absolutely true there is no absolute truth. But now, according to this same liberal professor, they are complaining constantly about student behavior. When they taught students to "question authority", they didn't mean their authority. When we replace belief in objective truth with moral relativism, we are telling people they are the one true source of morality, and that leads them to believe they are all, in a sense little gods and goddesses who should not be told what to do. Pretty soon we are dealing with little sociopaths who feel they are the center of the earth. So, despite skipping every class, the student feels she deserves an"A". Despite promoting the slaughter of innocent babies, the congressman feels he is a good christian. We really should pity and pray for these misguided souls. (Bill Dunn, a freelance writer)

.........why?

3 things to address in the next year; 1. dismantling the tax code and instituting a flat tax. 2. disassembling the two-party system. open elections of the best men and women for the job without party restrictions in any part of the process along with term limits. 3. strict regulation of the banking industry according to the basic premises of a free market system. These 3 address what is at the core of America's problems today: our money and the politicians who are handling it. We want the gov. to do its job which rests primarily in fairly representing U.S. interests on the global stage while state gov. manages its citizen's affairs, with little national government interference except in small, critical measurement. What we have now is federal highjacking of state affairs-H.Care, gun control, immigration and education to name a few, and little progress in international policy for more than 2 decades now. This isn't about taking Washington from the democrats, it's about taking America from from the hands of Washington altogether.

If anyone expected an address By Obama about peace in our time a few days ago as he accepted his Nobel peace prize, they didn't get it. He stated clearly that sometimes war is necessary to defend the peaceable and to serve justice and liberty. He even hit the George W. Bush note that "evil does exist in the world."

Some wanted a ban on public funding for abortions in the HC reform bill. My own states corrupt ,democrat Sen. Chris Dodd said the proposal would "severely restrict the rights of women...He said, "I am a proud defender of a woman's right to choose. The amendment represents an unprecedented- and in my view, deeply unfair and regressive- assault on a woman's right to choose. HC reform is about strengthening patient's ability to get the care they need from the doctor they choose...." That would make sense if the amendment would have restricted anyone's "right to choose". But it only sought to preserve other people's rights not to pay for a choice they find morally objectionable. But let's hear it for Dodd. By taking a position that is unacceptable to most republicans and many democrats, they may yet 'abort' (kill) the worst legislation ever. Hooray!!

So, the public option is dead, I believe; Long live the double public option. Obama's latest plan varys from past versions only by a degree, but its goal-the nationalization of the insurance industry- is unchanged. Under the compromise, insurer's inability to deliver "acceptable national policies" under the non profit framework would trigger a full blown gov. run system. That would happen in due course because the gov. would be the sole arbiter of what's "acceptable", and its dictates would ensure the non profits' failure. The gov. run system that would follow would be expensive, but the democrats don't care. If it runs a deficit, which it surely will, they will raise taxes or borrow to cover the losses initially. Meanwhile, the shear weight of this government racket, masquerading as "competition" would suffocate the ins. industry eventually. Medicare is the original public option, and a very poor one at that. If it were a corporation, it would have been declared insolvent long ago because it has promised $70 trillion in benefites of which it has $0. Obamacare would add to these unfunded liabilities because medicare patients would stop paying medicare taxes at the same time that medicare would instantly be responsible for 3 million more Americans. And they would consume on average more medicare dollars than they would pay ($7,600. a year or less)to buy into the system according to actuarial data. Also, with their medical care secure, more Americans may retire earlier putting an even greater strain on Social Security with its $14 trillion dollar debt load. At some point Americans are going to have to begin paying their own way and stop dumping their bills on future generations! No, the public option is not dead, it's just been split in 2 and repackaged.

Marriage happens to be a religious and God ordained institution that He set up for a a man and a woman together. Granted, you don't believe in God, but none the less, those who do, believe marriage is a definition for a man and a woman who pledge a devotion together and make a vow before God. Now, when a minority of society wants to change the definition of marriage to something they believe it is, to do so is to infringe on the rights of those who see it differently. Do gay people want to have a special committment to one another that's similar to marriage only they want to have 2 of the same sexes involved? Then they should come up with their own word for an institution such as theirs. They once called it a civil union. What's wrong with that? But no, they are not satisfied with just a 'civil union'. they want the religious people who KNOW that marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman to 'recognize' that they can be married also. Those of us who believe in God don't want our definition for marriage to be changed. Some Christians don't want Civil unions either. I for one, would prefer for gay people to stop doing what they are doing and see it for the sin that it is. But, there will always be people who do wrong in the world, and it would be impossible to stop it all, so, I say just let them do what they want. But they should not be allowed to change the definition of marriage. Some gay people believe that when they get married and say their vows before God that He is accepting of their committment to one another. God does not lie, and in his word, he says that homosexuality is a sin. He would never be accepting of sin of any kind. They are only fooling themselves. Unless of course they want to say their vows to a God other than thee God, Jesus. It is NOT okay to have sex with the same sex as far as God and many Christians who follow Him are concerned. Period. He calls it a sin and to allow it is just as bad as allowing any other sin to be acceptable by society and made into law. Now, I understand that everyone sins. don't get me wrong, it's one thing to sin, it's quite another to demand that the world accept it as okay. We have this problem already with abortion in this country. The government has made it legal, and it is sinful to murder children. We don't need any more sins becomeing lawful. Apart from the bible: The family unit is that of a mom and a dad. Every study out there shows that both are needed in a relationship with children involved. The father brings one thing to the kids and the mother brings yet another. If everyone had samesex partners, how would children be brought into the world? Common sense shows that the best thing for a family is one mom and one dad. (God has the best plan for families and marriage) Also, once same sex marriage becomes accepted into a society, they will begin to incorporate the 2 men together or 2 women together with children in photos and words in our public school text books and infringe upon the rights of the religious majority who feel it is sinful and wrong and don't want their children to believe otherwise.