Cleo's Mom

Oh, boy Leroyspuds - you're in for a whole bible quoting, bash the poor justifying yap session. Be prepared.

Then I'm sure you'll find the zany antics of bush hilarious!! Here he is looking for weapons of mass destruction in the oval office. "They must be here somewhere" he says. SIDE SPLITTING

So, in other words, when your tax dollars go to things you oppose, then it's stealing. When your tax dollars go to things you support, like the Iraqi war, then it's not. Typical convuluted conservative thinking and you call me dense?

Like anyone cares about what some actor who's been dead almost 30 years has to "say" about anything. Maybe he's channeling saint ronnie or charleston heston. :redface:

Even Republican defense secretary Robert Gates is calling for reductions in Pentagon spending. That says something about how bloated it is. But of course, when it comes to spending the neocons here and elsewhere continue to yap about the social support system we have and how we should cut spending there. Cut heating oil subsidies to the elderly or WIC to the single mom, etc.. The poor are easy targets. The big corporations that benefit from cushy government military contracts are not. They have well paid lobbyists and the record speaks for itself.

Liberals and Atheists are more intelligent than conservatives according to this study published in Social Psychology Quarterly in March 2010: William F. Buckley was a Catholic and a staunch Conservative, and though many educated people found his attitudes annoying, he was clearly a brilliantly intelligent fellow. Statistically speaking, though, it’s a lot easier to find someone like Richard Dawkins or E.O. Wilson – brilliant folks who espouse ideas atheistic or liberal. Satoshi Kanazawa, who seems to enjoy stirring things up, has posted a couple of blog entries on this topic, complete with graphs suggesting that people who say they are “not at all religious” have about 6 IQ points on those who say they are “very religious,” and that those who are “very liberal” have an average of about 12 IQ points over those who are “very conservative.”

You're also confusing your religious propaganda with fear mongering. Sometimes they overlap, but what I am referring to is the little old lady who thinks she'll be put in front of a death panel (courtesy of palin lies) or have her medicare taken away. Or the person who thinks their taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. Or the person who thinks they will no longer be able to see their own doctor, the government will tell them who they can see (right now it's the insurance companies who tell them). There is plenty of fear mongering going on from the right. Remember the mushroom cloud as a reason to invade Iraq? Or if bush wasn't reelected in 2004 we would be attacked again (courtesy of cheney - daughter liz has now taken up the torch for daddy). The terror level was elevated right before the 2004 elections. Fear mongering.

I was trying to be fair and say that there are different opinions about the constitutionality of this law and the courts will decide. I didn't expect sarcasm from you, but I guess I was wrong.

Fearmongering by saying that the healthcare bill would provide federal tax dollars for abortions: The Abortion Issue April 1, 2010 Q: What are the facts regarding the new health insurance law’s federal funding for abortion, or lack of it? A: The law says individuals who get federal subsidy dollars must use their private money to pay for coverage of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Claims that the new law will lead to a large increase in the number of abortions lack support. Strictly speaking, the new law does not provide direct federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother — the same rules that now apply to Medicaid coverage for low-income persons and to the insurance available to federal workers and military families. In fact, the new law states specifically that federal funds are not to be used for coverage of any other kinds of abortions, and that only premium dollars paid by individuals out of their own pockets may be used to pay for coverage of other kinds of abortions.

Falsehoods About Health Care Big myths about the current debate August 14, 2009 . Analysis False: Government Will Decide What Care I Get (a.k.a. they won’t give grandma a hip replacement) This untrue claim has its roots in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus bill), which called for the creation of a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The council is charged with supporting and coordinating research that the government has been funding for years into which treatments work best, and in some cases, are most cost-effective. Supporters of this type of research say it can provide valuable information to doctors, improving care and also lowering cost. Betsy McCaughey, a former Republican lieutenant governor of New York (and now a professing Democrat), wrote in an opinion piece that the government would actually tell doctors what procedures they could and couldn’t perform. The claim took off from there, popping up in chain e-mails and Republican press conferences. It’s not true. The legislation specifically says that the council can’t issue requirements or guidelines on treatment or insurance benefits: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 : Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer. … None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations made by the Council shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment. As for the health care bills themselves, the House’s H.R. 3200 sets up a center to conduct and gather such research within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, an entity the CBO called “the most prominent federal agency supporting various types of research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments." Like the stimulus legislation, the bill states that: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.’’ The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill (not yet released in its entirety) calls for a similar center that “will promote health outcomes research and evaluation that enables patients and providers to identify which therapies work best for most people and to effectively identify where more personalized approaches to care are necessary for others,” according to the summary of the bill. This claim also stems from a fear that the U.S. will institute a system like that of the U.K., where the government provides and pays for health care. But none of the bills now being debated in Congress call for such a system, and the president has said he doesn’t want nationalized or single-payer health care, as we’ve said several times. For more, see: "Doctor’s Orders?" Feb. 20 "Government-Run Health Care?" April 30 False: Private Insurance Will Be Illegal In July, Investor’s Business Daily published an editorial in which it claimed that H.R. 3200 would make private insurance illegal. But IBD was mistaken. It was citing the part of the bill that ensures people with individually purchased coverage don’t have to give up that coverage unless they want to. Under the House bill, people who want to buy new individual, nongroup coverage will have to purchase it through a new health insurance exchange. They can still buy private insurance – the exchange, in fact, would offer a range of private plans, in addition to a new federal health insurance option. However, those who were already buying their own insurance before the bill went into effect – about 14 million Americans – will have their plans grandfathered in. The part of the bill IBD cites doesn’t forbid insurers from issuing new plans. It says that new individual plans will not be considered grandfathered, and will have to be purchased through the exchange. "Private Insurance Not Outlawed" Aug. 13 False: The House Bill Requires Suicide Counseling This claim is nonsense. In an appearance on former Sen. Fred Thompson’s radio show, McCaughey also enthusiastically pushed the bogus claim that the House bill will require seniors to have regular counseling sessions on how to end their lives: McCaughey, July 16: The Congress would make it mandatory … that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care … all to do what’s in society’s best interest … and cut your life short. This is a misrepresentation. What the bill actually provides for is voluntary Medicare-funded end-of-life counseling. In other words, if seniors choose to make advance decisions about the type of care and treatments they wish to receive at the end of their lives, Medicare will pay for them to sit down with their doctor and discuss their preferences. There is no requirement to attend regular sessions, and there is absolutely no provision encouraging euthanasia. Of course, seniors who talk to their doctors about end-of-life care might well choose to discuss what types of life-saving treatment they wish to refuse. That choice has been federally guaranteed for almost 20 years. Doctor-assisted suicide, on the other hand, is legal in only three states, making it even more unlikely to be a major part of the federal health plan. Clarification, Aug. 18: We initially wrote that "euthanasia" was legal in three states. That term is often used to refer to "doctor-assisted suicide," but it has much broader implications than that. We’ve modified the sentence above accordingly. "False Euthanasia Claims," July 29 False: Medicare Benefits Will Be Slashed The claim that Obama and Congress are cutting seniors’ Medicare benefits to pay for the health care overhaul is outright false, though that doesn’t keep it from being repeated ad infinitum. The truth is that the pending House bill extracts $500 billion from projected Medicare spending over 10 years, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, by doing such things as trimming projected increases in the program’s payments for medical services, not including physicians. Increases in other areas, such as payments to doctors, bring the net savings down to less than half that amount. But none of the predicted savings – or cuts, depending on one’s perspective – come from reducing current or future benefits for seniors. The president has promised repeatedly that benefit levels won’t be reduced, reiterating the point recently in Portsmouth, N.H.: Obama, Aug. 11: Another myth that we’ve been hearing about is this notion that somehow we’re going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not. Is he wrong? Not according to AARP, by far the nation’s largest organization representing the over-50 population. In a "Myths vs. Facts" rundown, AARP says: AARP: Fact: None of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services. To be sure, Obama hasn’t always thought that Medicare "savings" could be accomplished without actual cuts in benefits. Last fall, his campaign ran two television ads accusing Sen. John McCain of wanting “a 22 percent cut in [Medicare] benefits.” The basis for the ads was a newspaper article in which a McCain aide said the Arizona Republican would cut Medicare costs. But the aide said nothing about cutting benefits, in fact quite the contrary. We called the claim "false" when Obama made it against McCain, and it’s still false now when Obama’s critics are making the same accusation against him. False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered One Republican congressman issued a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare," and we’ve been peppered with queries about similar claims. They’re not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage: H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. Also, under current law, those in the country illegally don’t qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don’t offer it. "Misleading GOP Health Care Claims" July 23 All fear mongering falsehoods started by, believed by and spread by those anti-Obama haters on the right - has nothing to do with sin.

I have posted elsewhere opinions by scholars and constitutional experts about this law. It will be decided in the courts. It apprears that most experts think it's unconstitutional but I'm sure there are those who think it is: Law Profs On Arizona Immigration Bill: It’s Unconstitutional By Amir Efrati By now you may have heard about a controversial immigration law passed in Arizona that makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. The law grants police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal. The measure was criticized Friday by President Barack Obama, who asked the Justice Department to research the law. It sounded to the Law Blog like we were heading toward a big federalism showdown. So we turned to Karl Manheim of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Irvine Law to pregame it for us. Their response: the law is DOA. The Arizona law appears to be “facially unconstitutional,” Manheim said. “States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.” States have long attempted to regulate immigration and in some instances the federal government successfully challenged state laws in court, including in the 1800s, Manheim said. But federal governments often stay out of the fight. In 1994, for example, California voters passed a law designed to deny social services to undocumented aliens. The law was challenged by private litigants and struck down by a federal court. Manheim said the Obama Administration, which is in the midst of trying to pass a federal immigration reform law, would likely rely on private litigants to challenge the controversial Arizona law. Challenging the law directly “might create a political conflict” for the administration, he said. If private litigants sue Arizona over the new law, the Justice Department also could file a so-called friend-of-the-court brief in support of the challenge, he said. And if everyone was supposed to post in black, why do you suppose they offer color choices? Hmmm. I am pro-choice, after all. You betcha. :smile2:

My stance on issues has been quite clear on these boards. But if you believe what is constitutional should be determined by a poll of Americans then that is just another example of the extreme thinking of the neocons and why we need to protect our country and constitution from them.

Over 77 Percent Of All Arizonans Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform Since Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) signed SB-1070 into law last month, polls have have shown that 52 percent of Arizona voters continue supporting the drastic — and likely unconstitutional — immigration law. However, a poll released today by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and National Council of La Raza (NCLR) shows that Arizonans overwhelmingly support action on the federal level in the form of comprehensive immigration reform and, if given the choice, prefer it over both increased border security and SB-1070: The results reflect polling at the national level as well. While a slim majority of Americans support Arizona’s immigration law, an overwhelming majority — across party lines — support comprehensive immigration reform. More specifically, a recent CBS/NY Times poll shows that 57 percent of all Americans believe immigration laws should be set by the federal government and 64 percent support some sort of legal status for undocumented immigrants already living in the country. A Univision/Associated Press poll which was also released today confirms those results and also shows that, amongst Latinos, 86 percent favor a “legal way for illegal immigrants already in the United States to become U.S. citizens.” Ultimately, Americans are fed up with the nation’s broken immigration system. Only 17 percent of Americans believe the federal government is doing all it can do on the issue while 78 percent believe it could be doing more. Support for SB-1070 is undoubtedly a manifestation of widespread frustration. However, the fact that the majority of Americans also support comprehensive immigration reform shows that there are two ways forward on the issue: 1) local legislative efforts that challenge the Constitution and turn entire regions into police states, or 2) a comprehensive approach that doesn’t just secure the border, but also turns undocumented immigrants who meet certain requirements into productive citizens and taxpayers who could contribute trillions of dollars to our national GDP.

I don't find the majority of Americans to be well educated in matters of politics, our government or our constitution. Therefore, that makes them vulnerable to fear-mongering, which the neocons have perfected as a technique. They used it with healthcare, they use it with gays, they use it with a woman's right to choose, and the list goes on. I continue to work politically to inform and educate people and elect democrats whose agenda I support. And I will work to prevent our country from being taken over by the extremist agenda of the right. Just because the majority of Americans support this doesn't make it constitutional. I'm sure there was a time in this country (and probably not that long ago) where the majority of americans supported segregation.

Very funny. Keep them coming. :w00t:

Of course not, not when their numbers don't support your view and opinions. You'd be quoting them well enough if they did. A chart that speaks for itself. bush policies has a bigger impact. Washington Post.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute Once again, an opinion, not the CBO report. And you can keep cutting and pasting all these OPINIONS, but when congress (democrats and republicans) want a bill scored they go to the CBO, not Doug Holtz-Eakin, or the American Action Forum or Americans for Tax Reform. Again, I will stick with the CBO and you can go on all these neocon websites.

Ah, here it is: March 29, 2010 The news: several companies, including 3M, John Deere, and Caterpillar, have already announced that due to the health-care plan recently (and with incredible tumult) signed into law, they'll see raised expenses this year, which could be tough in this economic environment. But all of those companies' added expenses combined don't add up to half of AT&T's proposed problem, announced on Friday and reported by The New York Times: the telecommunications giant says they'll see a whopping $1 billion "noncash accounting charge" this year. In other words, AT&T will have $1 billion less in 2010 than in 2009, explicitly because of this bill--and such a big change in the books may mean AT&T will pass on the loss to its employees, possibly resulting in a loss of health-care benefits for retirees. April 18, 2010 House panel cancels meeting with company execs on healthcare law costs By Vicki Needham - 04/14/10 05:44 PM ET A House panel has canceled a hearing to examine the financial effects of the healthcare law on the nation's large companies. The companies asked to allow more time for provisions of the new law to go into effect before holding a hearing, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak, chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations wrote in a letter to subcommittee members dated Wednesday. Company representatives from AT&T, John Deere, Verizon and Caterpillar were scheduled to testify April 21 about millions in additional costs the healthcare law would create for their businesses. During preliminary interviews, representatives from the large employers said the new law could have positive effects for the companies by eventually cutting healthcare expenses, if implemented properly, according to the letter. John Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, told committee staff that if "implemented right, the law has the potential to make employers and employees better off because it could bend the cost curve," according to the letter. Several companies commented on how the healthcare bill could help their companies. "Should the structural reforms intended to reduce the costs of delivering healthcare ultimately prove successful over time, self-insured companies like AT&T would likely benefit from such reduced costs," said Wayne Watts, senior executive vice president for AT&T. Wow! When they were told to "show us the figures" they backed down and changed their tune. And there are those who say the government lies :w00t: - IT'S CORPORATE AMERICA WHO ARE THE LIARS AND THIEVES (DOES GOLDMAN SACHS RING A BELL?)

Try to keep up. Caterpillar, AT&T have already admitted that they were wrong and the healthcare bill will save them money. Loserbob first posted about this and then I found the article that explained it. They decided not to show up and Congress and testify as to the proof about what they were originally saying about what the costs would be to them. In other words when they were told to "show me the figures" by congress, they folded like a deck of cards. :w00t: I think it's under the conservative vs liberal thread. If I feel like it I will find it.

The HC bill came back with a figure of $800 billion, and a week after it passed we found out it would cost $1.2 trillion. That's a difference of $4 billion dollars This bill is going to kill an economy that is just beginning to rally. We need to repeal it! LIE! LIE! LIE! All you offered was some neocon's opinion of what he THINKS will happen to the cost of the healthcare bill based on facts and figures from the past. Yawn. Our government uses the independent CBO as it's source and that is what I am going by. I knew you didn't have anything concrete to base this claim on. Oh, and someone from Americans for Tax Reform. Even better. LOL