Cleo's Mom

Are you dense or being deliberately obtuse? Please read the following slowly. Reposted since you obviously didn't read it the FIRST time: WASHINGTON (AP); The Senate has rejected a plan backed by President Barack Obama to create a bipartisan task force to tackle the deficit this year. The special deficit panel would have attempted to produce a plan combining tax cuts and spending curbs that would have been voted on after the midterm elections. But the plan garnered just 53 votes in the 100-member Senate, not enough because 60 votes were required. Anti-tax Republicans joined with Democrats wary of being railroaded into cutting Social Security and Medicare to reject the idea. Do you see that? Tax cuts and spending curbs. Please find a credible source that says that anyone on this committee proposed tax increases and that is why the republicans voted against it. And if that is the reason (which it isn't) then why not just approve the commission and then vote down all the tax increase ideas when offered? But you just throw things out there without backing them up. I stand by what I have posted. Those 6 republicans were for the commission until Obama was for it and then they were against it because they hate Obama and want him to fail. Unless you find something credible to back up what you are saying, quit posting your opinion as fact.

But the government IS supporting ALL the corporations through tax breaks and incentives. And for the wall street banks that were bailed out - what don't you understand that that was OUR money (taxpayer money) in the banks that they gambled with? Our government insures our deposits in banks but only up to a certain amount. So corporations and these banks depend on government welfare which is OUR tax dollars. My taxes and my deposits ARE my business. So AIG got billions in taxpayer subsidies (bailout) after making horrible business decisions with people's money and you are okay with them giving a $100 million dollar bonus to someone?

Please quote your source for anyone on this commission proposing tax increases. And if the republicans thought that was what democrats were going to propose (and knowing they were against it) why would 6 republicans co-sponsor it and then vote against it? You just won't admit that they voted against it just because Obama was for it. Period. End of story.

I just saw him talk about this the other day at one of his townhall meeting where he said in one program they eliminated $20 billion because of duplication of services. That was just one program. He did eliminate waste in the current budget. You mean he didn't personally notify you about it? Tsk, tsk.

From Pattygreen: I agree that there are many private corp. that overpay their employees, but what's that to you or anyone else? Why should it bother you that someone wants to pay their employee a large sum for the work they do? If they can afford to be generous, then why does it bother you? If the government is doing that with our money, then we have a right to compalin, but private businesses should be allowed to grow and prosper at their own will. This is called free enterprise and it's what makes this the greatest country to live in. Because the big banks of wall street who came to DC with their hat in their hands begging for a government (read: taxpayer) handout threatening complete collapse of the economy if they didn't get it - then turns around and pays those who made all the bad decisions big bonuses. Millions $$$ With our money. What don't you get about the unfairness of that? That is OUR money they are gambling with, making bad decisions with and paying bonuses with.

Yes, I listened to the SOTU and thought it was great. I did not hear about any existing domestic programs being expanded. The only new things I heard were: 1) Financial reform of wall street: doesn't cost anything and will protect taxpayers 2) Repaid TARP money being given to small banks to loan to small businesses to create jobs. The GOP always harps on small businesses and private sector jobs. 3) Freezing of programs other than defense, veterans, social security. Of course had he not proposed a freeze, he would have been criticized for that. It's never enough for his critics. Geez. :smile2: And btw - he can't freeze current spending because that budget has already been passed by congress last year. The new budget goes from Oct. 1, 2010 until Sept. 30, 2011. Take a civics lesson, will you? 4) Investments in clean energy and green energy. Just like China is doing. But it doesn't take China 60 votes to get anything done. China just does it and is ahead of us. Did anyone ask bush how he was going to pay for 2 wars and 2 tax cuts for the rich? NO. Were all these critics in a coma then? Of course not, but it was bush, not Obama and that was the difference. All this outrage is just so phoney.

What huge government expansion of public assistance or welfare or any of the current programs are you talking about? What new programs are being proposed? Reining in the cost of healthcare (which is 1/6 of our economy) will help to REDUCE the deficit. That's a big part of what the healthcare bill was about. And the healthcare bill would reduce not add to the deficit. We've been over that. No need to rehash. So all this panic and fear,etc.. is not realistic. We need to invest (spend) money now to get this economy back on track. A healthy economy helps reduce the deficit.

You're WRONG. The public option has always been a popular part of the bill. It was some of the other provisions that people didn't like, plus those who liked the public option withdrew their support of the bill when it was removed. So, healthcare became less popular after the public option was removed.

I have no idea what you are talking about. This wasn't about imposing taxes, it was about a bipartisan COMMISSION to investigate how to reduce the deficit. From the Huffington Post: WASHINGTON (AP); The Senate has rejected a plan backed by President Barack Obama to create a bipartisan task force to tackle the deficit this year. The special deficit panel would have attempted to produce a plan combining tax cuts and spending curbs that would have been voted on after the midterm elections. But the plan garnered just 53 votes in the 100-member Senate, not enough because 60 votes were required. Anti-tax Republicans joined with Democrats wary of being railroaded into cutting Social Security and Medicare to reject the idea. So, again, why did the 6 republicans who co-sponsored this commission vote against it when Obama said it was a good idea? It's about tax cuts and spending curbs - isn't that what the republicans (and you) have been yapping about?

I think you would be very surprised to know that a lot of people who receive any type of government assistance are employed. You always portray them as lazy ass slackers who stay at home all day watching their big screen tv. Of course you always have an example of misuse of public assistance and extrapolate that to everyone. Your attitude is very cold-hearted no matter how you try to defend it with all your rhetoric. And you can quote the bible all you want but Jesus walked among the poor and there are far more examples of passages about helping the poor and least among us. Life was different in those times, people lived in small villages with extended families. It could not have been written to predict a country this size with 350 million people. So, it didn't precisely say that government should help poor people but you seem to want other bible passages to become part of the way our government does business (anti-gay, anti-abortion) but not those passages that say about helping the poor. Then it's NOT about the government, it's about family. Just more hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom There are 350 million people in this country. The needs of the poor, disabled, elderly and least among us are far too great to be serviced by the capricious nature of handouts among those whose choose to be charitable. Medicaid to pay for nursing home care is an example. It is very expensive. About $6000/month per person. That's after all the person's assets are used up. And please don't go into your example about how the family should take their incontinent, bedridden elderly parent into their home and provide 24/7 care, meds, therapy and medical care. We've already been there, done that. I believe that families need to care for their own elderly. Another unrealistic solution to the millions who are in nursing homes. You always think that if you did something, well, then EVERYONE should be able to do it. Everyone's situation is different. Do not judge, lest ye be judged. There are single parents who need government subsidized child care in order to be able to work and pay taxes. There is such a thing as birth control. People need to either be responsible for the care of their children on their own after they are born, or get on some form of birth control if they can't do it. When the government pays for their folly, it does not discourage them from having as many kids as they can't afford. why should the childcare expenses of others be placed on the rest of society? This is wrong. You didn't use birth control, got pregnant and went on welfare. So what that you paid it back, you used it because it was there to help and you took the help. I don't blame you for doing that. But I do blame you for saying "use birth control" - which can fail, by the way. And if you want people to get off welfare and get a job, then they will need subsidized childcare. There are disabled people who need social security disability because they can't work. Then they should receive it. Like i said before, I'm not against some government help, just not the monstrous amount of "so called" help we give away. It is so called because it is not to anyones benefit to enable them. Liberals want a safety net for these people. This distinguishes us from countries like Iran and Uganda. I don't want to be like them. I want the United States to be a country that is proud of how it helps those who need it. Liberals don't want a lifelong dependency, just a hand up when needed. That's who we are. And I'm proud of it.

Until he is able to deal with an agenda that doesn't involve cleaning up bush's messes. The unemployment was rising in 2008 (under bush) and continued to do so in 2009 (under Obama), but the stimulus helped keep the unemployment from reaching 15%. Economists from both sides of the political spectrum agree on the benefits of the stimulus. Even McCain's campaign economic advisors are out there saying that if he had been elected the unemployment rate would still be 10% or higher. The bank bailout started under BUSH, but Obama gets blamed for it. But the banks are paying it back with interest. And it kept them from completely collapsing which would have been a disaster for our economy. Healthcare: Well, of course bush couldn't be blamed for anything here. He just ignored the problem. Go to the ER, he said. Like Obama said, if you want to score points on polls, just do nothing. And you can't be criticized. I blame Obama for not pushing harder for the public option and taking control of this issue rather than letting congress handle it. People turned against healthcare when the public option was removed. Don't ask, don't tell: Obama should have just issued an executive order to remove this. So, I blame him for not doing this. I blame Obama for trying too hard to get bi-partisan support when it is clear that the republicans have no intention of supporting anything he does.

Once again, you didn't answer the question. Why did 6 republicans who co-sponsored the bill vote against it after Obama supported it? They were for it until Obama was for it. Then they were against it. Not only is that hypocritical but shows their anti-Obama sentiment and they desire to have him fail. And when bush entered into two wars that we couldn't pay for he did so while also enacting 2 tax cuts for the rich - which were pushed through congress by the republicans through reconciliation. NOW THIS IS UNHEARD OF, STUPID AND RIDICULOUS and contributed to the huge deficit bush created. But did you hear anything about this from the so-called liberal media? No, once again he got a pass. And I was paying attention, even if you weren't.

The issue that was being debated was who voted for Obama and why. You said whites wanted a black president. I said they voted for him despite his being black. They voted for him because he wasn't bush, was smart, well-spoken and people were looking forward to brains being in the white house again. His race didn't matter. The video you posted was not at all relevant to this debate. And yes, I posted the video about the stupid McCain/Palin voters. So there are stupid voters on both sides. What's your point?:thumbup:

I have long maintained on here that from the republicans in congress to those who take to the streets - it isn't about deficits, spending, healthcare or anything else. It's about Obama and wanting him to fail. These people have never accepted Obama as their president and just want him (and with him it would be America, too) to fail. I offer the following as an example: By the time Obama came into office, the U.S. was in the hole for $8 trillion dollars. So what to do, what to do? Well to answer that question the Senate decided to set up a commission. The commission’s job was going to be to find out what to do about all our debt. The proposal to start this commission was bi-partisan. There were six Republican Senators that co-sponsored the bill with Democrat Senators. And as the beginning of this article said, when it came time to vote, the same six Senators that co-sponsored the bill, voted against the bill. The reason being that the commission was going to offer solutions, and that’s not what the Republicans want, not while there is a Democrat President and the Democrats also have the majority in Congress. As soon as Pres. Obama supported this commission, the 6 republicans who sponsored it, voted against it. So, Pattygreen - what explanation, other than just hating Obama and opposing everything he promotes, do you give for this development??

I just found out that the "I can't believe it's not butter spray" that advertizes 0 calories for 5 sprays, 0 fat, 0 everthing actually has 860 calories per 8 oz. bottle. I was told to use this by my nutritionist. I would use it on everything, and not just spray, but I would pour it on baked potatoes and steamed cauliflower - thinking it had zero calories. Big mistake! Anything beyond 5 sprays has calories and fat. So beware.

The reason people weren't paying attention to bush, as you put it, is because he was a republican and when people opposed him they were called unpatriotric, unamerican and siding with the terrorists. This includes the media. Not one person asked bush how he planned on paying for 2 wars and 2 tax cuts for the rich. NOT ONE. But with Obama - as soon as he uttered the word healthcare, the neocons were demanding to know how it would affect the deficit and how it would be paid for. AND WHAT BUSH DID DOES MATTER NOW. DON'T YOU GET IT? :thumbup: The things that Obama is getting criticized for now are the things he has had to do to CLEAN UP BUSH'S MESS. The bank failures, the economy, the rising unemployment, the rising deficit, lack of healthcare - ALL THESE THINGS STARTED UNDER BUSH AND BECAUSE OF HIM. Now that Obama is dealing with cleaning up the messes of bush, he is criticized, which is totally unfair.:smile2:

Alert the media!!! Voters are stupid. I guess those people are the only ones in America not to watch Fox news because surely Fox news would have reported ad infinitum, ad nauseum that Obama made a slight slip up and said 57 states. Oh,my! Horrors! :thumbup: How can he be elected president if he thinks we have 57 states??? So what else is new? That right-wing video doesn't dispute what I posted, which I stand by.

From Pattygreen - quote: I didn't say he didn't get white votes. He won because he was black, and even the white people as well as everyone else wanted a black man to be in the presidency. He could have been a black mickey mouse and he would have won. The american people are ready to have someone of color rule here. We want the seperation of race to be evident here. You have it completely backward. White people voted for Obama DESPITE the fact that he was black. They voted for him because he wasn't bush. They didn't care what color he was. I do believe that the black people voted for him because he is black, but they did not make up the majority of those who voted for him. The whites did. For those who supported Clinton and for whom race did matter - many of those switched to McCain. I worked for both the Clinton and Obama campaigns and I can tell you that race was not a factor. Just the fact that he wasn't bush and he had brains and could speak intelligently and supported the liberal agenda was enough to energize the base.

There are 350 million people in this country. The needs of the poor, disabled, elderly and least among us are far too great to be serviced by the capricious nature of handouts among those whose choose to be charitable. Medicaid to pay for nursing home care is an example. It is very expensive. About $6000/month per person. That's after all the person's assets are used up. And please don't go into your example about how the family should take their incontinent, bedridden elderly parent into their home and provide 24/7 care, meds, therapy and medical care. We've already been there, done that. There are single parents who need government subsidized child care in order to be able to work and pay taxes. There are disabled people who need social security disability because they can't work. Liberals want a safety net for these people. This distinguishes us from countries like Iran and Uganda. I don't want to be like them. I want the United States to be a country that is proud of how it helps those who need it. Liberals don't want a lifelong dependency, just a hand up when needed. That's who we are. And I'm proud of it.

Of course you see it differently because you see it through the lens of idiots like Glenn Beck. REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY ALERT!!! Bush tried terrorists in civilian court and they were found guilty and are in prison. Haven't escaped. But all done under the radar. No big media scrutiny. Here's what he said: Bush In 2006: Terrorists Should Be “Tried In Courts Here In The U.S.” With Republicans hammering the Obama administration for trying suspected 9/11 terrorists in a New York court, a Democrat points out that in 2006, George W. Bush seemed to say outright that terrorists should be “tried in courts here in the United States.” There was no outcry at the time. In a news conference on June 9th, 2006, Bush described his discussions with the prime minister of Denmark over the fate of Gitmo detainees this way: I assured him that we would like to end the Guantanamo. We’d like it to be empty. And we’re now in the process of working with countries to repatriate people. But there are some that, if put out on the streets, would create grave harm to American citizens and other citizens of the world. And, therefore, I believe they ought to be tried in courts here in the United States. We will file such court claims once the Supreme Court makes its decision as to whether or not — as to the proper venue for these trials. And we’re waiting on our Supreme Court to act. Now, however, because it's OBAMA, well that's different. The republicans have to be against it. I guess they were FOR civilian trials of terrorists before they were AGAINST it. And as for Gitmo - because of the torture (under bush) that took place there, it is a great recruitment tool for Al Qaeda. Along with that whole Abu Ghraib thing. Closing it would take that away from the terrorists. And let's not forget that BUSH released many terrorists from Gitmo to their native countries to be re-entered into it after going through a program. Many of these have turned around and re-joined the terrorists. Now, why didn't we hear about this from the liberal media? And get the scrutiny that Obama is getting? Because bush got a pass and Obama doesn't.

There are 10 white couples waiting for every one, healthy, white baby to adopt. And if there are more white people, then there would also be more white babies born. Your logic escapes me. And there are plenty of people who consider themselves conservatives who are glad to take any handout the government gives them. Don't make it sound like it's only liberals. Liberals aren't necessarily the ones who take the government help, they just support the concept of helping the least among us.

It is just your opinion because the facts don't back it up as to who voted for Obama. Yes, he got the black and hispanic vote. But he won because white people voted for him. Period. McCain got the white male vote, the christian right vote (also mostly white) and the wealthy vote. And the southern vote. Obama got everyone else. Since you have stated that you were not politically observant during bush, I suggest you do some research about the lies of his administration. There are no shortage of books written on the subject. All politicians promise things they can't deliver on. Obama thought he could get healthcare passed until the liars on the right hijacked it. I have already posted those lies many times. He said he would get us out of Iraq and he is. The marines have left. The rest will be gone next year. He promised he would keep the banks from going into a complete free fall and he did. And most of the banks have paid back the money with interest. He said there would be tranparency and he has opened up the white house visitor logs. He had the beginning of the healthcare debate on c-span but they it was logistically not possible when they broke up into many committees and met at different times in different places. But he did have his meeting televised with the GOP at their retreat. Now, that was great. I want all the votes in the senate and house to be televised and all the filibusters by the GOP to be televised too. You should support that because it's transparent. Obama said he would stop torture and he did. He said he would end don't ask don't tell and he started the ball rolling there, too. He would be able to get more done if the republicans wouldn't threaten to filibuster everything - by the way 121 times last year - a record!! I would definitely let them filibuster and let all of america see it. Under his administration we captured twice as many terrorists than bush did. Also, the only terrorist who were released from Gitmo to their homeland and then re-engaged in terrorism were RELEASED BY BUSH. So, I see Obama as doing the best job he can with the mess bush left him to clean up.

Our state has a closed primary - independents cannot vote. Most states have opened primaries where they can.

What, nothing to say about idiot Beck's secret code that he misspelled? Hmmmm. I guess he was just brushing up on his chalkboard skills and didn't really mean it.