Cleo's Mom

The latest August polls show that the majority of Americans, and a bigger majority of democrats and independents support healthcare reform. This is a partisan issue. The republicans don't support it and never will. So, I say to the democrats that we helped put in office - vote for healthcare reform or we can just as easily vote you out of office.

All the christian religions base their teachings on the bible. The same bible. The fact that they come to different conclusions about what it says and what it means makes my point. The catholic church has biblical references and interpretations for every one of the things you take exception to. I am not defending them, because I think they got some things wrong, too. But my point is that if a major, world wide religion, with billions of members, that claims to be the one true religion because it is the only one that can be traced directly back to Jesus can get the bible wrong, then anyone can. And this is especially true of those who use the bible to support their hatred and their discriminatory views.

At least Obama is opening the records. bush refused to do so - ever. I'm still waiting to see who cheney met with to develop our energy policy. Again, he refused. So whether it is after Sept. 15 or not is not important. It's that he is taking the first, unprecedented step forward. But of course, even something this positive is met with criticism from the right.

I'm pretty sure Obama isn't mentioned in the bible, however he did say that he prayed that God would melt Obama like a salted snail. This is a man who preached to his congregation "Why I hate Obama". I assume he tells his congregation his interpretation of the bible which would have to include hate since he was preaching it. If his interpretation of God's word in the bible includes hating and praying for someone's death, I have to assume that is the wrong interpretation. If a "man of God" so to speak can get it wrong, can't you?

The above was written by republican representatives John Shadegg and Pete Hoekstra for ablursspot.blogspot.com. I wonder how much $$$ they get from the insurance industries?

What right-wing conservative site did you get this from? And by "...now even in death" - I am assuming you/they meant Ted Kennedy. He gave almost 50 years of his life to public service and was a champion for the least among us (a phrase used in the bible) and his funeral was befitting a man of his accomplishments. He never demanded royal treatment in life or death and shame on you and the authors of this article for saying so. Never mind, you don't have to answer the question. You took it verbatim from free republic.com.

The 24/7 cable news cycle is also to blame. Having to fill up all that air time creates the need to air a lot of crap. If someone famous does anything bad, they will interview everyone from the neighbor to the paper boy. The people on the street interviews are the best. These people often cannot put two coherent sentences together but are glad to play to the camera.

If what you plan to do contradicts with the word of God, it's not God who is telling you what to do. Are you admitting that someone who claims to know the word of God in the bible could get it wrong?

No. they are not happier. Medicare, Medicaid, and VA benefits do not cover all their health care benefits. If on those ins. plans, they need to take out secondary ins. to pay for what it doesn't cover. They still have to purchase insurance privately. These government run programs are going bankrupt. I heard Obama tell us that himself in a recent speech. If they're hitting the dust for lack of funds, what do you think will hapeene to Obama's national plan? This is what I mean, EVERYTHING the government runs, runs out of the funds needed to operate it. The cost of doing business the governments way is extremely expensive. For everyone they hire to run the business recieves lavish benefit plans and pensions that outlive their jobs end.And I could talk forever about how they waste money. I know you don't let facts interfere with your opinions, but polls have shown that those on medicare are happy with this plan - 60%- which is higher than those on private plans. No, medicare doesn't cover 100% of everything. No insurance policy does. There is always a deductible and co-pays. Those on medicare then have to decide if they want to pay the deductibles/co-pays or buy medigap insurance. Those currently on medicare are being paid by those current wage earners who pay into this. There are fewer wage earners per medicare recipient as time goes on. The only way to solve this is to reduce medicare benefits or raise medicare payroll taxes. Which one of these would the american people accept? I would hope that they would accept an increase in payroll taxes to the same degree that those who support private insurance are apparently happy with and accepting of increased insurance premiums.

I had a business once that wasn't doing so well and needed some financial help with. Where was my bailout? This is my point. I don't care how big your business is, the gov. has no business funding it with MY money. The government is supposed to pretect and defend us from foreign attacks, provide for infastructure and roads and highways, secure military, police and those in authority to protect the rights of others. Not be in business for itself, and spend money on every huge thing it deems nice to have. And did you start up the daycare with all your own money or did you receive a loan from the SBA - a government assisted program? When you needed financial help, did you ask for a loan from a bank? Did you ask for help? You show your naivite (sp?) when you say government money isn't involved, or shouldn't be, in private businesses. It's called corporate welfare, mainly in the area of big tax breaks. Locally, a huge Westinghouse research plant was closing in a nearby town. They were going to move out of state. This would have resulted in thousands of jobs being lost locally. Good paying, white collar jobs. So, our governor convinced them to move to another local town and gave them a huge tax break - no taxes for many years. Now, who do you think is making up for their not paying taxes? The rest of us. But it saved the jobs of these people, who own homes, buy in local stores and pay taxes, etc. So, this is government involvement in private industry. And if our governor hadn't made the tax incentive to them, another governor of another state would have. So, who is wrong in all of this? The conservative right is always about creating jobs in the private, not public, sector. Isn't the above scenario doing just that? But it took government involvement.

How could that be? Are you saying he came to a different conclusion about how to represent what God wants and what the bible says? If there is only one truth then how could his truth, a man of God, want people to pray for the death of Obama? Or is it possible for people who base their opinions on the bible to get it wrong?

Van Jones resigned. But I think because bush's administration failed to provide the proper (any?) oversight to many areas of business and enterprise that Obama is going in the other direction.

Originally Posted by pattygreen There are people who shouted down a disabled woman in a wheelchair talking at a town hall meeting about the cost of her drugs ($289/week) and how she worries about not being able to pay her taxes or afraid she would lose her home. The people shouted her down and insulted her. One man asked "The disabled have rights and I don't?". What does this have to do with spending? The plan will cost trillions! That has alot to do with spending. These people were ther to express their anger and frustration over government they are oppsed to. So, they expressed their anger about health care spending by attacking a disabled woman worried about the costs of her medication? How does that make sense? And Pres. Obama has said he won't sign a bill that will increase the deficit. Several preachers are asking for prayers for Obama's death. This is outragous, and if it's true, then they are committing a horrific sin. This does NOT represent what the rest of us promote. There will always be a few maniacs within every kind of group. Unfortunately this will be what our opponents will focus on. Baptist preacher Steven Anderson (Tempe, AZ) gave a sermon entitled: Why I Hate Barack Obama" in which he declared he was praying for Mr. Obama's death and called on God to "melt" the president like a salted snail. The next day one of his parishoners went to a town hall meeting with Obama with a bullhorn and semi-automatic assault rifle. And he was just exercising his 1st & 2nd amendment rights? Give me a break!! And this preacher defends, supports and promotes the bible you base your life on. Who got it wrong? People are showing up at Obama's events with guns strapped to them and won't answer the question about what they plan on doing with the gun. The relatively few who have shown up with their guns were demonstrating their 1st Ammendment right to do so. Many of these rights are gradually being taken away from us a little at a time. They didn't have any 'Plans' to do anything with their guns, except to show or prove their right to carry them. It was a stand on government and their attempt to take away our rights. And kind of like a "ha ha, THIS is my right!" sort of thing. In some of those 'cowboyish' states, carrying a gun in public is a common thing anyway. Where I live in Ct, you would never see that or hear about it. Please be specific about what rights have been taken away from you under Obama. Don't be vague. Under bush our right to have warrants before our phones could be tapped was taken away. The right to be charged with a crime before being incarcerated was taken away. But please list those rights that have been taken away by Obama. Parents don't want their kids to hear Obama talk about staying in school and studying because it would be an endorsement of his agenda. That's right. He wants to promote his socialistic agenda, and we don't want him to try to indoctrinate our children towards leaning towards his way of socialism and government control. Obama is going to talk to students about staying in school and studying hard. Wow! Talk about radical and socialist!!! When bush was president it was "If you criticize the president you are a traitor" and now it's "Hide your kids from the president". He has always talked about the need for more parental oversight on their children's learning and study habits - turn off the tv, spend time with them. And he's also told men to "man up" who bring children in this world - to be responsible for them. Again, WOW! What a socialist thing to say. If this message scares you then that says more about you. None of this has anything to do with budgets, the stimulus, spending or aides. The people who hated Obama before he became president and are angry that he became president have now found an outlet - which started witht the town halls. It is a mob mentality and these are the same people who are the birthers and deathers and others who are extreme in their views and intolerant of others. I didn't bring up Obama's race - you did. I can't understand why you would think that I am a bigot and a hater for any reason except for maybe you feel that I am a racist. Is it not possible to love all people yet hate the things that they do? I have no reason to 'Hate' Obama. He has done nothing personally to me. I am not a prejudiced person. I have biracial children, and family members who are black, white, and philippino, and even some who are gay. I love them all dearly. This is about his spending us into oblivion with all his actions!!! I didn't say that you were a bigot, I said you brought up Obama's race first. I didn't. And the hatred for Obama has been very evident since these town hall meetings morphed into a feeding frenzy. It is a mob mentality that has grown. Obama being hung in effigy. His face depicted like Hitler (an enormous insult to those who have been affected by the Holocaust), the nazi, communist, etc..rants, and the birthers and deathers. This is all deep seated irrational paranoia and it must be racial because none of this has anything to do with spending. Clinton supported the same agenda that Obama does currently (but he didn't have the economic mess to clean up) and you didn't see this kind of hatred with him. But if you believe that our nation is not racist, you are the only one. Really? Do we not have a black and white president? I have nothing to "get past" because what I have said is true.

Thank you, Happy Home. I agree.

There are people who shouted down a disabled woman in a wheelchair talking at a town hall meeting about the cost of her drugs ($289/week) and how she worries about not being able to pay her taxes or afraid she would lose her home. The people shouted her down and insulted her. One man asked "The disabled have rights and I don't?". What does this have to do with spending? Several preachers are asking for prayers for Obama's death. People are showing up at Obama's events with guns strapped to them and won't answer the question about what they plan on doing with the gun. Parents don't want their kids to hear Obama talk about staying in school and studying because it would be an endorsement of his agenda. None of this has anything to do with budgets, the stimulus, spending or aides. The people who hated Obama before he became president and are angry that he became president have now found an outlet - which started witht the town halls. It is a mob mentality and these are the same people who are the birthers and deathers and others who are extreme in their views and intolerant of others. I didn't bring up Obama's race - you did. But if you believe that our nation is not racist, you are the only one. I have nothing to "get past" because what I have said is true.

I didn't make prediction. I stated facts. We were losing jobs at the rate of about 700,000 jobs a month, in August it was about 250,000 jobs. Those are facts. Economists look at trends and the trend says that while we will continue to have job losses, it is slowing down.

It has a ripple effect. When roads are paved they need to buy equipment and materials from private businesses who in turn hire workers, etc.. Same with small town and big town governments. Every job is not a government job. And when people go to work, whether government or private, it helps the economy.

No, I always wanted transparency. But that didn't happen with bush. The lies were hidden, the secret wiretapping, the abuses at Gitmo, Abu Grahib, the cost of the Iraq war, showing the coffins of the dead soldiers coming home - all this was initially kept from us. After bush "won" in 2004 - then things were revealed and the truth came out but it was too late. Obama just opened the WH visitor logs so we can see who goes there - something bush refused to do. What was he hiding. Cheney's secret talks with his oil buddies that developed our energy policy?

My opinions are based on facts and doing research not listening to the hate mongers on the right (rush, glenn, fox news) who hate Obama and everything he stands for. We even have ministers praying for Obama's death. Yes, those who preach the bible praying for someone to die. Clinton didn't have the big mess to clean up that Obama did/does. He tried to get healthcare via Hillary and she was crucified by those who said it was too costly and then those same people didn't blink to give bush blank check after blank check for Iraq, never questioning the cost. If this anger is about debt, then when Clinton balanced the federal budget and left with a surplus and bush sqaundered all of that and ran up the debt - where were the town hall outrages? Where were these same people who shout down the disabled at these town hall? They were bush supporters then and Obama haters now. There was no outrage because as cheney said then "reagan proved that deficits don't matter" (and reagan and bush ran up huge deficits) - what this all proves is that DEFICITS ONLY MATTER WHEN OBAMA DOES IT. The anger about Obama getting elected is palpable and every day it gets worse. Ministers praying for his death, men wearing guns on their hips to Obama's meetings. Parents upset because he will speak to students to study hard and stay in school. People begrudging him a vacation. This is not about the debt. THIS IS ABOUT THEIR HATRED OF OBAMA. PERIOD.

Originally Posted by pattygreen Yes, it DOES matter what past presidents did, especially bush, because the SPENDING OBAMA IS DOING NOW, NO MATTER HOW EXCESSIVE YOU BELIEVE IT TO BE, IS NECESSARY TO CLEAN UP BUSH'S MESSES. The best way to clean up someone elses spending problem and mess is to spend even more then them???? That's a great way to fix things. I would have gone with paying off Bush's spending spree. It is easy to ignore problems and protect the status quo when you benefit from the status quo - which is what bush did. He didn't address the economy until late fall when he started the bailouts of the banking industry. I didn't hear or read anyone complaining bush when he did that. that's because it wasn't on the news like the things that Obama is doing now. Is that the publics fault? It's the fault of the right-wing media run by Murdoch and Fox news. Obama then had to continue to bail out the banks so that our economy would not get any worse. I understand the outrage about this, but it was a painful solution to a problem that was created by the republicans who did away with banking regulations that would have controlled what they did to cause the economic downfall. My mantra is "regulate, baby, regulate". Now, his administration is trying to get a handle on the regulations and outrageous CEO salaries, something that if the bush administration had done, then Obama would not have to spend money to help solve this problem. Did Obama need to spend money on all the pork projects in the last stimulus bill in order to regulate CEO salaries???? No. There was no pork in the stimulus bill. You are confusing the stimulus bill with the federal budget where each congressional representative competes for federal dollars to bring back to his/her district. That is their job and what they are sent to Washington to do. Because if the banks fail, the economy fails. However, some of those bailed out banks are making a profit and repaying our government with interest. The stimulus and middle class tax cut (that 95% of wage earners got) was necessary to do just what it says - stimulate the economy. And it is working. No. It isn't. There is more unemplyment now than ever. It is working. Every town, every shovel ready project are doing things they couldn't do without the stimulus. Employment will be the last indicator to improve. Slowly but working. Had those billions of dollars not been infused into the economy we would have faced a depression and probably 20% unemployment. I disagree. You never need to spend money to get out of debt. You may have to hurt for a little while till your finances balance out, but you should never spend more. The spending wasn't to get out of debt. It wasn't debt that was the problem. It was that the economy runs on money. The banks control the money. They were failing and thus the economy would have failed and put us in a depression. When the banks don't loan money, people can't buy homes, cars and business owners can't make payroll, etc... and these things are necessary for a healthy economy. The stimulus has slowed job loss from 700,000 a month to 250,000 a month. Still a lot, but slower. Pure speculation and nonsense. You better alert the Bureau of Labor Statistics that monitors employment and unemployment that their figures are wrong. Originally Posted by pattygreen

Yes, it DOES matter what past presidents did, especially bush, because the SPENDING OBAMA IS DOING NOW, NO MATTER HOW EXCESSIVE YOU BELIEVE IT TO BE, IS NECESSARY TO CLEAN UP BUSH'S MESSES. It is easy to ignore problems and protect the status quo when you benefit from the status quo - which is what bush did. He didn't address the economy until late fall when he started the bailouts of the banking industry. I didn't hear or read anyone complaining bush when he did that. Obama then had to continue to bail out the banks so that our economy would not get any worse. I understand the outrage about this, but it was a painful solution to a problem that was created by the republicans who did away with banking regulations that would have controlled what they did to cause the economic downfall. My mantra is "regulate, baby, regulate". Now, his administration is trying to get a handle on the regulations and outrageous CEO salaries, something that if the bush administration had done, then Obama would not have to spend money to help solve this problem. Because if the banks fail, the economy fails. However, some of those bailed out banks are making a profit and repaying our government with interest. The stimulus and middle class tax cut (that 95% of wage earners got) was necessary to do just what it says - stimulate the economy. And it is working. Slowly but working. Had those billions of dollars not been infused into the economy we would have faced a depression and probably 20% unemployment. The stimulus has slowed job loss from 700,000 a month to 250,000 a month. Still a lot, but slower. And the unemployment will still go up before it comes down. But it will - AND IT WILL BE DUE TO THE STIMULUS MONEY. Healthcare is driving up the costs to the average american. It now represents about 18% of the GDP and there are many industries that have a vested interest in seeing that rise to 20 - 24% of the GDP. So, it needs to be addressed to help contain costs while offering affordable insurance to all. Reduce waste in Medicare where some providers are taking advantage of this government program. bush's trillion dollar war in Iraq was out of control. He negotiated a very lucrative deal with the pharmaceutical industry to provide medicare part D drug coverage. They got very rich on this almost $400 billion dollar plan. Very little debate or discussion. He just pushed it through Congress and signed it. No public town hall debates, no outrage, despite the fact that they lied about the cost. Said it was closer to $250 billion but when a guy in the budget office revealed that it was closer to $400 billion, he got fired. Again, very little press. But now, Obama can't even go on vacation, which he pays for himself, without a public outcry. And he can't even give a speech to students to tell them to study and stay in school without parents objecting. SO, DON'T INSULT ME, PG, BY TELLING ME THAT THIS IS ABOUT SPENDING. THIS IS ABOUT OBAMA, AND IT IS ABOUT THE ANGER THAT HE GOT ELECTED AND IS PROMOTING THE AGENDA HE RAN ON.

FULL ANSWER: The White House published the 2009 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff on its official blog on July 1, listing the title and salary of many White House office employees. A few days later, a fuss began online over the number of people who are assigned to work for the Office of First Lady and how much they earn per year. A blog post from Chicago Sun-Times reporter Lynn Sweet on July 6 put the spotlight on "What Michelle Obama’s Staffers Earn." The staff of TheLastCrusade.org, a Web site that describes itself as a place "where you can engage in the life and death struggle against the forces of Islam, apostasy, moral complacency, cultural relativity, and the New World Order," then took the information and posted a piece claiming that the first lady had hired an "unprecedented number of staffers" to "cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession." That piece was also posted on the conservative Web site CanadaFreePress.com under the byline of Dr. Paul L. Williams, who runs TheLastCrusade.org. That post has become part of a chain e-mail that some of our readers have passed on to us, and the e-mail expands upon Williams’ post, falsely claiming that some recent first ladies have had only one or three staffers. How Many? According to the 2009 White House report to Congress, there are 16 people with a title specifically indicating they work for Michelle Obama’s office. In other words, there are 16 people with "first lady" somewhere in their title, such as Jocelyn Frye, deputy assistant to the president and director of policy and projects for the first lady. The list reported by Sweet and The Last Crusade, however, includes six other staffers who do not have "first lady" in their title but are a part of the first lady’s office staff, such as Desiree Rogers, special assistant to the president and White House social secretary, and Natalie Bookey, staff assistant. We contacted Katie McCormick Lelyveld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary, to check the list’s accuracy. Lelyveld told us in an e-mail that the first lady’s current staff size is actually 24, not 22, as the chain e-mail claims. Lelyveld couldn’t provide a list of the staffers at that time. First Ladies Past The chain e-mail’s author claims that "[t]here has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life." The author claims that "even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one." But the counts for those first ladies are incorrect – and they’re way off. Stephen Plotkin, reference archivist for the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, told us in an e-mail that Jacqueline Kennedy’s office was "headed" by one person, but said that there were "at least 9 people working for Mrs. Kennedy, with the promise of a great many more" during her time at the White House. Kim Coryat, an archives technician at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, told us it can be difficult to nail down a precise count of staff considering "White House staffing for all offices ebbs and flows with time." But she said in an e-mail that White House telephone directory records indicate that Hillary Clinton had at least a staff of 13 as of October 1993; 18 as of April 1997; and 19 as of March 2000. Lelyveld said that Michelle Obama’s staff was actually no different than that of her predecessor, Laura Bush. "[W]e have exactly the same staff number as Mrs. Bush and our office organization reflects a similar staffing model, so insinuations otherwise are wrong," she said. Lelyveld said that the White House’s "personnel records indicate" that there were 24 staffers for Laura Bush at some point. We were able to verify at least 18 staffers for Laura Bush, as of June 30, 2008, via the 2008 White House staff list published in The Washington Post’s White House Watch column. Sixteen people were specifically referred to as a "first lady" staffer, and Amy Zantzinger and Dorothy Thornton served as White House social secretary and deputy social secretary, respectively. It’s possible that someone with the title of "staff assistant" was assigned to the Office of First Lady as well, as is the case with Michelle Obama’s staff. The combined annual salaries for the 22 staffers we can specifically identify as working for Michelle Obama come to $1.6 million. For the 18 we could identify as working for Laura Bush in 2008, the total is $1.4 million. Dr. Myra Gutin, a professor of communications at Rider University and a first ladies historian, says that the first lady’s role has certainly "grown and evolved" since the 1960s, but generally speaking, the first lady’s "staff numbers about 14-16." Gutin told us she recalled "some first ladies have had staffs of more than that." –D’Angelo Gore Sources Executive Office of the President. "Annual Report on White House Staff to Congress." WhiteHouse.gov. 1 Jul 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009. Sweet, Lynn. "What Michelle Obama’s Staffers Earn." PoliticsDaily.com. 6 Jul 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009. Sweet, Lynn. "More Michelle Obama staff appointments." SunTimes.com. 16 Jan 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009. "First Lady Requires More than 20 Attendants." TheLastCrusade.org. 6 Jul 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009. Froomkin, Dan. "2008 White House Office Staff List." Washington Post White House Watch Column. 24 Jul 2008, accessed 30 Jul 2009. Gutin, Myra. E-mail sent to FactCheck.org. 30 Jul 2009. Plotkin, Stephen. E-mail sent to FactCheck.org. 31 Jul 2009. Coryat, Kim. E-mail sent to FactCheck.org. 31 Jul 2009. Posted by DAngelo Gore on August 5, 2009. Tags: chain e-mail, First Lady, Michelle Obama Categories: Ask FactCheck Just so much hatred from those angry that Obama was elected and that the country voted for him that they have to spend so much time combing through every little detail to try to find something to bitch about. Big freaking deal that she has 24 staffers. We were in a recession with bush, too, and laura's staffing cost $1.4 million. I don't recall that making the press.

Well, BJean - here's a completely different topic for you to mull over. Not to mention laugh about. I just heard that the republican party is thinking of running Dick Cheney for Pres. and Sarah Palin for VP in 2012. I can only hope. That would just be like waiting for the punch lines. Darth Vader and Caribou Barbie. Their campaign poster could show them both with their shotguns. It's just too bizarre to comprehend. But it should give you a chuckle.

So true. At least for the first half of the Iraqi war, most of our soldiers thought it was because Iraq was tied to 9/11. So sad that they died for that lie perpetuated by the bush administration.