Cleo's Mom

Leigha makes a legitimate observation about postings and you respond with a very hateful personal attack? That shows that you can't answer her observation in any other way. I think it just proves her point.

With reference to the government taking over the student loan program: They cut out the middle man (banks) and SAVED billions of dollars. Previously the banks got the profit, while the federal government assumed the risk (by guaranteeing the loan). How is that fair?:thumbup: Now the government eliminates this (yeah!) and puts the savings into Pell grants so more kids can go to college A win-win for all.:thumbup:

People need to have the information available to make good food choices. Obesity is an enormous cost to our healthcare systerm. Every tool that we can have should be used. I don't want to have to find out the calories from a website on in the hall on a bulletin board. I don't always know what restaurant I am going to to check out their website in advance. It should be right there on the menu. What is so hard about doing that? I could type that up in an afternoon, send it to a printer and have several copies made for my menus if I were a small (20 places) business. I am sure it is within their problem solving ability and budget to do so. Geez, you'd think we were asking them to do the impossible. Lighten up, this is a good thing.

You say you are for some government help for those who need it. But you never say which programs, entitlements, or subsidies you would eliminate. You never define how the government is more and more intrusive into your life. I don't feel any more intrusiveness under Pres. Obama than I did under bush. Actually less, now that I know my phone conversations aren't being listened to without a warrant. Unemployment is high but the recession is getting better thanks to Pres. Obama's economic policies. He has extended unemployment benefits beyond the 26 weeks. Ask any of those who receive it if they feel this is intrusive. You say you can't afford to help everyone. Who would you leave out? If we don't help the least among us, we cease being the great country we are and we become morally bankrupt.

I think it is a legitimate job of governments at all levels to provide a safety net for people. That's an acceptable use of my tax money, in my opinion. Mandated (by gov't) vaccinations for children has prevented widespread disease and in the case of smallpox, eliminated it worldwide. I am glad that the government steps in to protect people (me) from the stupidity of others, e.g. I am glad that the government requires child car seats to protect them from stupid parents. Or that there are no smoking laws in workplaces to protect me from stupid smokers. And most people who claim to be independent are only one job away from unemployment, foreclosure and having their hands out for government help. I even heard today that the Amish (who are extremely independent and remove themselves from not only government but our society and culture) take out loans and get government help.

Well, we should have known it wouldn't take long for the hypocritical republicans who bashed the stimulus and then took credit for it to their constituents to take credit for the healthcare bill that they ALL voted against. HIR the Next Stimulus for the GOP? Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 06:30:05 PM PDT This is a hoot: Chuck Grassley, Mr. Death Panels, is now touting HIR. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has long been a vocal critic of the Democrat's health reform efforts, but today he started taking credit for some provisions of the bill, and talking up his own role in crafting the legislation. In a release sent out by his staff to reporters today, Grassley says the bill will "hold tax-exempt hospitals accountable for the federal tax benefits they receive" thanks to his work. It's the stimulus all over again: Republicans fighting for all their worth to prevent governance, and then claiming credit for it when it passes despite their steadfast, and screaming, opposition. Dems are ready, this time. The DSCC: "Chuck Grassley has been in Washington for too long if he thinks Iowans did not notice his strenuous, strident, and spirited opposition to health care reform," DSCC spokesperson Eric Schultz said in a statement. "This is someone who did everything he could to stop the bill, but now thinks it is worth touting." .... "Either he is a total hypocrite or he has taken March Madness to a whole new level," Schultz said in the DSCC statement today. Republicans are obviously in a bit of tizzy, trying to figure out precisely how to respond to this setback. Some of them want full repeal, some of them maybe partial repeal and some of them, apparently, civil war. Taking credit for reform, however, would be about as blatantly hypocritical in grand Republican tradition as they could get. So kudos, I guess, for Grassley being willing to go there. from dailykos

If the unemployment goes up, you and all the others on the right (Mr. Coppertone Boehner, sour grapes mccain, etc) will sure be quoting it as gospel.

Guns vs Butter? Well, I will always side with butter. Protecting our people from starving, disease and homelessness is part of protecting us. It is domestic security and domestic protection. Protecting the citizenry is more than just going to war, too. I can't see one tangible way either of these wars has made me safer. I think our real safety and protection comes from the intelligence the CIA and FBI and other agencies provide that stops or prevents domestic terrorist attacks in this country, including and especially from those anti-government terrorists on the right, like those 9 from Michigan. They pose the biggest threat to our safety.

Where did I say that? I thought we were talking about the government living within it's means? You can't support borrowing money from China to finance two wars (one unnecessary) that hugely increased our deficit and then turn around and say the government should live within its means. I guess borrowing for wars is okay. Borrowing for anything else is wrong. :thumbup:

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom This type of tax hits the poor and middle class harder, but especially the poor. One dollar out of ten is a lot to take away from them and reduces -even further- their buying power. But one dollar out of ten for a wealthy person would not have much of an impact and I'm sure they would love this kind of tax. And not surprisingly, why you support it. I am not against helping the poor. I am not in favor of the rich. I am against government dictating to the people what they should do with their money. So, it is getting rather tiring listening to you harp on my "selfishness" as you call it. You know as well as I do that this is about government BIGNESS and control of Americans rights and freedoms, not charity. I thought the issue was flat tax vs progressive tax (that we have now)? I showed that the flat tax is unfair and more burdensome to the poor. But you turned it around to something else when you couldn't defend your position. And you keep throwing those buzzwords around - control, rights, freedoms, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The government has the right to tax and you are mandated to pay. Period. And if living within our means - means you can't go to war if you don't have the money - I would support that. But of course there is ALWAYS money for wars. Even if it has to be borrowed from China and added to our national debt. Oh, I know, some will say that is the job of our federal government - to protect us. But protection can have different interpretations and I see it differently, as do others.

from bureau of labor statistics To anyone unemployed, a job is a job is a job. Whether it is part time, temporary, with the government or private sector. Who says that only permanent jobs in the private sector count? :thumbup: Ask an unemployed person if they care where their next job comes from. And 17,000 of those jobs were in manufacturing. People making things. And when did we start to see a change from increasing job losses to decreasing job losses to job gains? That would be after Pres. Obama was elected.

If you borrow, it's not your money. And that loan is often backed by the government.

WASHINGTON – The nation added jobs at the fastest pace in three years last month as factories, stores, hospitals and the census all brought workers on board — the surest sign yet that the worst employment market in a generation has finally snapped back. The unemployment rate stayed at 9.7 percent for the third month in a row, the Labor Department said Friday. Economists actually consider that a hopeful sign because it means more people are encouraged and starting to look for work. "This recovery is for real," said Chris Rupkey, economist at the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi. Overall, the economy added 162,000 jobs for the month. About a third of the gains came from the census, with much more to come: About 700,000 head-counters will be hired to tally the nation's population this spring. Economists took heart that even aside from the population count, the private sector added 123,000 jobs for the month, the most since May 2007. Because of his foresight and willingness to tackle tough, unpopular problems, Pres. Obama is helping to turn this economy around.

According to snopes.com it is false.

The catholic church believes the pope is infallible, which I do not believe. I think this current scandal supports my view.

I am a catholic and I think the pope ought to resign. I never really liked him before he became pope, and now even less so. The catholic church has lost its moral authority with this issue which certainly didn't start these past few weeks. The sin of the abuse, the cover ups and the denials are absolutely outrageous and I am furious about it. I make up my own mind about what I choose to believe when it comes to faith and religion and I will decide how to interpret the bible. The church will not tell me what to believe. They have zero credibilty. And I am absolutely appalled at the depth to which they are going to circle the wagons around the pope. The buck stops with him now and especially when he was an archbishop overseeing this.

Well, I can see, ,that you will never get a job re-writing history for the Texas school books. :thumbup: Additionally, the lifestyle of the Native American Indians worked very well for them. They had no need to "progress" to something else. They were healthy and self-sufficient. It was the white man who brought diseases, like typhus, measles, scarlet fever, etc.. to them.

Mandates to purchase health insurance are a REPUBLICAN idea. They were first proposed by republicans when Hillary Clinton was working on healthcare - it was their idea. And also under REPUBLICAN Romney with his healthcare in his state. I wonder why no one brought up the issue of being unconstitutional then? Hmmmm.

I've always believed that you could tell a lot about a person by how they view and treat the least among us - including animals - as this is telling as to what is in their hearts. So I was horrified to hear about this today (even though it happened years ago): The incident: dog excrement found on the roof and windows of the Romney station wagon. How it got there: Romney strapped a dog carrier — with the family dog Seamus, an Irish Setter, in it — to the roof of the family station wagon for a twelve hour drive from Boston to Ontario, which the family apparently completed, despite Seamus's rather visceral protest. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html#ixzz0jxpZPwJP And this is the republican front runner for president? Of course this is addition to his hypocrisy to push through a healthcare reform for his state that is like the one just passed by democrats and then turn around and criticize this plan.

Thank you, BJean. I'm sure a certain poster is gagging in reading your supportive post about me. He seems to think we operate in collusion. Too bad. Your posts are very thoughtful, reflective and insightful and show a deeper understanding of the issues as opposed to those on the right who fly off the handle and post emotional rants and outright lies.

No, I am basing it on the CBO report and what is in the bill itself, not what the extremists on the right yap about what's in the bill and what it will mean.

This type of tax hits the poor and middle class harder, but especially the poor. One dollar out of ten is a lot to take away from them and reduces -even further- their buying power. But one dollar out of ten for a wealthy person would not have much of an impact and I'm sure they would love this kind of tax. And not surprisingly, why you support it. And if living within our means - means you can't go to war if you don't have the money - I would support that. But of course there is ALWAYS money for wars. Even if it has to be borrowed from China and added to our national debt. Oh, I know, some will say that is the job of our federal government - to protect us. But protection can have different interpretations and I see it differently, as do others.

If the tea party is legit (which everyone on here knows I don't believe) then we should see them marching with signs supporting not only financial reform for wall street but for the following to reduce that deficit that they claim to care so much about: This new Quinnipiac University poll shows the strongly populist--and traditionally Democratic--leanings of Americans when it comes to bread and butter issues. The Quinnipiac University poll found that 60 percent of Americans among both major political parties think raising income taxes on households making more than $250,000 should be a main tenet of the government's efforts to tame the deficit. More than 70 percent, including a majority of Republicans, say those making more than $1 million should pay more. But 80 percent say raising taxes on those making less than that should not be part of the government's approach. Moreover, most oppose touching Medicare and Social Security - two long-term drivers of the budget deficit over the coming decades.... Obama's 2011 budget proposal and most of his fellow Democrats favor eliminating tax breaks for individuals making more than $200,000 and for households making more than $250,000, which were enacted in 2001 and 2003. Not surprisingly, many more Democrats than Republicans back hiking taxes on those making more, though 56 percent of Republicans did support raising taxes on those making more than $1 million, the poll found. There was only a slim partisan divide, with only slightly fewer Republicans opposed to cutting the growth of the government health plan for the elderly, Medicare or Social Security, to help the deficit. The American public, even Republicans, want basic economic fairness and recognize that taxing the people who make a lot of money is a helluva lot fairer than cutting Social Security and Medicare for the rest of us. It's the basic principle Democrats have operated on for decades. If the deficit commission really wants to cut entitlements, perhaps they should consider the quasi-entitlement program defense contractors, which has been a pretty significant contributor to the bloated budget deficit in the past decade, as the Project on Defense Alternatives has shown. That, combined with some well placed tax increases, should go a long way to putting the country back on a sustainable fiscal track.

You often claim that Obama's agenda is unconstitutional (which it isn't) but if you are concerned about constitutional violations, then you should be interested in this: A federal judge ruled Wednesday that two lawyers' constitutional rights were violated when the bush administration subjected them to illegal survelliance while they worked for an Islamic charity in Oregon. All that's left for the court to decide is the amount of damages to be paid to the two lawyers and the foundation's estate. Pres. Obama criticized his predecessor's use of the state secrets priviledge to shield the government from liability for domestic surveillance without first getting a warrant, which requires that a judge be shown that there is probable cause to suspect wrongdoing. So, you see, bush actually did violate the constitution. Warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional.

Your arguements are all based on emotion, opinion and predictions, not fact: "It's a government take over" "Obama wants to control the healthcare of everyone" "It will eventually control decisions about people's bodies" "It will increase the deficit" Your arguments just don't have any basis. It's just a "just you wait" kind of thing, lacking merit. The following refutes the old "it's unconstitutional": : Congress has framed the insurance mandate as a tax, which it has well-established powers to create, and the legislative branch's sweeping authority to regulate the economy has been clear since the 1930s. "The attack on this bill is not merely an attack on the substance of this particular measure," said Jack Balkin, of Yale University. "It's also a challenge to understandings that come with the New Deal." Sanford Levinson, of the University of Texas Law School, said Americans who choose not to purchase health insurance can pay a fine. Congress, he said, clearly has the authority to levy taxes and fines. "As a technical matter, it's been set up as a tax," Levinson said of penalties. "The argument about constitutionality is, if not frivolous, close to it." Mark Tushnet, of Harvard University, said the central premise relied upon by the law's opponents — that Americans who choose not to have insurance aren't involving themselves in the nation's commerce — is flawed. "The failure to have health insurance doesn't mean the person won't be consuming health services," Tushnet said. Once they receive care, he said, they have become involved in commerce and are subject to the federal government's regulation. There also is some question as to whether courts could hear challenges now, because the requirement to purchase insurance doesn't become effective until 2014. Courts typically require plaintiffs to show some sort of current injury for which redress is sought.