I am probably going to open a whole new can worms here. I might regret opening later, but some of the topics being discussed really got me thinking about things. One of the things said that really kind of got me going on this was:

Pattygreen: Christians (usually conservative republicans) for the most part try to live moral, virtuous, nonsinful lives.

I am not a Christian and I live a moral, virtuous, and for the most part nonsinful life. I know several people who live the same, and are not Christian, and have conservative beliefs.

Cleo's Mom: First of all, "conservative republican" is redundant, because they are all conservative. I don't think there are any moderate republicans left particularly among those elected to office.

However, I just wonder if it is MORAL to mislead or outright lie, because listen to what these conservative republicans have said:

Dana Perino said on Fox: We did not have a domestic attack during bush's administration.

A month later Mary Matalin said: bush inherited 9/11 from Clinton.

Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani said that we never had a domestic attack under bush but we had one under Obama.

Now, I ask you - do these people think the American public is really that stupid? Apparently. Those on the right just make things up and keep repeating it. And when they repeat it often enough eventually some people begin to believe it.

They reduce things to some emotional, hate filled sound bite: death panels, obamacare, socialism, hitler, nazi.

This is because they are unable to engage in meaningful, intelligent, fact-based discussions. Maybe they don't want to do that because they don't have the facts on their side.

First I am a moderate Republican. I do tend to lean a little more to the right, but on some issues I lean to the left. Some things I can lean pretty right, and others I lean pretty far left. It really depends on the issue. I'd like to think that would make me moderate. I know many people who are moderate Republicans also. So we are still out there. There are some politicians who are still moderate also.

Second just because you are a Republican does not mean that you can not have a intelligent, meaningful, fact-based conversation. That is like saying liberals have their heads in clouds and live in fantasy nerf world filled with rainbows and butterflies.

Both sides sling mud back and forth. Both sides have their hate filled idiots. Both sides have their good and bad points. Both sides LIE, LIE, and LIE some more.

I get so sick and tired of hearing about how the Republicans have screwed everything up...I mean really they did it all alone.....no help from the left at all???

I personally feel that if you lean too far left or right you can't have a very grip on reality, and when our politicans lean too far left or right it's not good for our country either way. I hope someday too see more moderate politicans in office.

NOONE needed to make those signs and noone needed to put them up. They were totally unnecessary and a waste of money!!! This article will explain to you why there are no jobs out there.

By MICHAEL P. FLEISCHER

With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it's going to be later—much later. Here's why.

Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She's been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay.

Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides.Greedy insurance companies. That's why we need a public option. And then the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance,So that if she is unemployed she can receive unemployment. $149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. Disability insurance to pay her if she can't work, DUH? Who does she think should pay her if she can't work? Oh, I'll bet she thinks the government should. And medicare helps the elderly with their medical care and they love it. That's the small stuff. New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes.That is the cost of living in society. Pay your share. Again, duh! The federal government gets $3,661 for Social Security She will likely receive more than she put in and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. She will be allowed generous tax deductions resulting in an average of $3036 in tax refund. So her actual taxes were only $3214 - a bargain by international standards. We pay one of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world. The roughly $13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She's lucky she doesn't live in New York City, where the toll would be even higher.

Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental.Again due to the greedy insurance companies. More reason we need the public option. It would cost this company a lot less. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers' compIf she gets hurt at work, this pays. Again, duh. and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally's Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.

Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and even for Sally too.

Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare.

Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums—for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%.

To offset tax increases and steepening rises in health-insurance premiums, my company needs sustainably higher profits and sales—something unlikely in this "summer of recovery." We can't pass the additional costs onto our customers, because the market is too tight and we'd lose sales. Only governments can raise prices repeatedly and pretend there will be no consequences.

And even if the economic outlook were more encouraging, increasing revenues is always uncertain and expensive. As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company's vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment.

A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government's message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price.

Mr. Fleischer is president of Bogen Communications Inc. in Ramsey, N.J.

This is a for-profit business. Paying employees is the cost of doing business and their salary has nothing to do with hiring new employees.

What does have to do with hiring new employees is demand for their product. They make educational communications systems, background music systems and public address systems. In this time of economic recession, these are not high priority items. They are non-necessities.

Additionally, this company receives tax breaks, like all companies do, for the cost of doing business. They can write off almost all losses.

Also, because the republicans don't want to change the law that allows cheap imports or outsourcing jobs, this company probably has to compete against cheap Chinese imports.

And one other thing. If they can get more work out of the same number or fewer employees, then why would they hire. And that's what businesses are doing.

So, all their whining is just that. Non-financial corporations are sitting on several trillion dollars in assets and whining all the way to the bank.

I, for one, am not going to shed a tear.

Edited August 9, 201015 yr by Cleo's Mom

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom

That's the whole basis for everything you believe: punishment.

Suffering the consequences for our own actions is how we grow. I suppose you never let your children suffer the consequences for their actions. You probably fixed all their mistakes and covered for their every wrong doing. In so doing you failed as a parent.

The government is not our parent. That aside, how dare you speak about my parenting of which you know nothing. I am a very good parent. As was my late husband. As teachers we had high standards for both behavior and academic achievement for our children. Both are college educated, both married college educated people and all four have good jobs. There were consequences for their bad behavior. And they all turned out great. I guess the proof of my parenting is in the pudding. And I'll hold my kids and my parenting up against anyone's.

I believe in allowing people to fail and learn from it. I believe in allowing consequences (both good and bad) to occur for the growth of individuals. I believe that manknd needs to be held accountable for their actions and choices in life. I do not take joy in witnessing the destruction of people due to their choices. It is very sad, actually, but it must happen for them to change and grow. To not allow it to happen is a disservice to an individual. Oh, don't get me wrong, I also believe in forgiveness and mercy and grace, but just because there is forgiveness, doesn't mean there is no consequence. I will help anyone who is sorry for what they've done and truly wants to change. I will offer a hand up to anybody. Even so, when you do wrong, you must endure the consequences for what you've done and learn from it.

You should have suffered the consequences for your promiscuous pre-marital behavior and subsequent out of wedlock pregnancy but instead you turned to the government to support your "sins". It doesn't matter that you paid it back. The government programs were there when you needed them - something you want to deny to others.

-Punish women for having sex by forcing births (No. allow unborn human beings to live because they have a right to)

-Punish the unemployed for being lazy by denying benefits (No. deny benefits after a time of grace so that individuals will get up and get a job. There are no jobs. Didn't you just post a big long cut and paste about why they aren't hiring? Trying to have it both ways. Geez. My own brother has been collecting benefits and says "why should I work when I can stay home and get the funds directly deposited for doing nothing?" He wont even look for work until the benefits are near ready to dry up.)

Then obviously his unemployment is enough for him to live off of. Not true for family men and women who have mortgages, car payments, food, utilities, etc.. to pay for. They can barely make it on unemployment.-Punish the single mom for having the baby by cutting aid (No. Motivate the single mom to work for her food. Nothing in life is free.)

That's right. I forgot your unrealistic plan. Live in a $100/week apartment with roommates and work at at McDonald's (or Walmart) and go to school to be a CNA at night and I forget who's supposed to watch her kid or how she's going to get to and from school and work. I guess she'll have to find one of those magical apartments right near a bus line that goes to both. And paying for school? Well, again, the details are sketchy.

-Punish the medicaid nursing home recipient because his/her family couldn't supply 24/7 skilled nursing care. (No. insist that families care for thier own aging parents and use nursing home care as a last resort unless you can pay for it yourself.)

People cannot afford to give up a job to take care of an invalid parent even if they get their SS checks. Their homes are also not set up to handle the 24/7 needs of someone who requires nursing home care. Not to mention that they might not have the room. People in nursing homes require skilled care to care for a multitude of health issues. They need to be monitored and can't be left alone. This is not realistic in someone's home. Yeah, yeah, I know patty the great did it so everyone should be able to do it.

You always criticize me for making sweeping generalizations about the tea party or republicans. But in this post you have made sweeping generalizations about the unemployed (they're not all like your brother) or those who put their parent in a nursing home, or single moms who need help.

And on top of it, you believe that everything the government provides for people is the result of their bad behavior. (No. Everything that the government provides for people comes from the governments willingness to give a handout to them so that they will desire dependence upon them.) Did you desire a dependence on them when you got your handout? Oh, I know, you're the exception.

I guess getting old and receiving SS and medicare is the "bad behavior" of not dying young.

(No. people who recive SS and medicare are entitled to it because they paid into the program all their lives and expect a return on their investment)

I guess unemployment benefits is the result of the bad behavior of getting laid off.

No. That's the results from a president who makes horrible policies and encourages a socialized nation.You'll have to explain this one since unemployement compensation has been around a long time. The current unemployment is the continuation of the rising unemployment that started under bush when it went from 4% to 8.1% and we were losing 750,000 jobs a month when Obama took office and now have had 7 months of positive job growth. So, even for you this is a very strange and of course unsubstantiated claim.

We've got to nip all this bad behavior in the bud. :thumbup: Because these are the big government entitlement programs. Everything else pales in comparison. True.

But the minute some problem or disaster happens, even a man-made one, like the BP oil spill, or the wall street crash, those on the right yap "what is the government going to do about it?"

That's because those are the exact things that the government is supposed to be there for. Disasters and defense and protection for its citizens. P.S. (They should have let wall street crash.)

The government is supposed to be there for natural disasters and pay for the relief. For man-made (BP) disasters, the company should pay for all of it. I don't want my tax dollars to pay for BP's mistakes and lies. But when Obama got a $20 billion escrow account for BP to pay for their spill, republicans called it a shakedown and defended BP.

But try to regulate a company like BP to prevent or address future catastrophies and the right again yaps "that's big government, it stifles job growth, blah, blah, blah". What total hypocrites.

Edited August 9, 201015 yr by Cleo's Mom

EXCLUSIVE: POLL FINDS VOTERS TIE CORPORATE CORRUPTION OF WASHINGTON TO ECONOMIC CONCERNS - A poll of 9,600 voters in battleground states finds that a prime way for candidates to show voters that they plan to address the faltering economy is to take a stand against corporate control of the political process. 57% said that getting the economy going required taking on corporate lobbyists. 79% said it's important that a candidate commit to reducing the influence of corporations over elections, with 56% overall saying it's very important. 60% wanted Citizens United overturned and two-thirds wold be more likely to support a candidate who backs a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision. The poll was commissioned by MoveOn.org and done by SurveyUSA. The full story in HuffPost tomorrow morning.

I second all of these.

As an example, the anti-worker, anti-union Chamber of Commerce spent $144 million last year lobbying which is more than the collective salaries of all 535 members of congress.

Edited August 10, 201015 yr by Cleo's Mom

More republican hypocrisy:

The state aid bill that congress will be voting on tomorrow has been vastly reduced, but it is paid for. This is money for teachers, police, firefighters and medicaid.

Nonetheless, the republicans are opposed to it and refer to it as a bailout for "special interests".

These are the same republicans who have no trouble supporting the extension of the tax cuts for the rich which is not paid for and which will have added 3 trillion to the deficit over it's ten year run and about $700 billion if extended.

patty: "You mean like how the liberals try to convince the public that anyone on the right is a racist and a hater? You mean like that?"

No patty, I mean they lie and misrepresent and cheat to win elections. The right wing extremists who make false claims against our president and against people working in congress are what I'm talking about.

I wasn't talking about HATE. I wasn't talking about RACISM. I was talking about lying, cheating and misrepresenting to win elections.

If you want to talk about the leftists and accuse them of stuff, make a post saying that. Don't try to hijack mine to mean something that it doesn't.

patty: "Don't put words in my mouth! I told you not to do that many times. So, stop it. I have never, EVER, said that anyone was going to Hell for anything! What a LIAR!!!! you are!"

I am not a liar. I have read your posts many times when you've said that only if people believe as you do, will they be able to get into heaven. If you say that the only people who are going to heaven are the ones who believe as you do, then one must quickly conclude that you mean that the ones who do not share your beliefs are going to hell. You've posted it repeatedly. It's one of your mantras. Why in the world would you deny it? And why in the would would you call me a liar over something you have stated repeatedly? This is very confusing.

patty: "I never knew that the wealthy business owners claim to be born again."

Roll eyes? You think this is funny? Are you telling me that you are unaware that there are a lot of very wealthy and powerful people who claim to be born again? And I say "claim" because in reality many of them are just, as in business, hedging their bets. The way they behave does not indicate that they are true Christians. Take a look around, if you really pay attention it isn't hard to see them. There are seveal stand outs in congress and on the Fox network. And lets not forget Pat Robertson who helps lead them.

Cartoonists' take on taxes.

Government Spending (#1 of 379)

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom

That's the whole basis for everything you believe: punishment.

Suffering the consequences for our own actions is how we grow. I suppose you never let your children suffer the consequences for their actions. You probably fixed all their mistakes and covered for their every wrong doing. In so doing you failed as a parent.

The government is not our parent. That aside, how dare you speak about my parenting of which you know nothing. I am a very good parent. As was my late husband. As teachers we had high standards for both behavior and academic achievement for our children. Both are college educated, both married college educated people and all four have good jobs. There were consequences for their bad behavior. And they all turned out great. I guess the proof of my parenting is in the pudding. And I'll hold my kids and my parenting up against anyone's.

*I said you "probably" fixed all their problems. I get that from desire for the government to be the 'fixer' of American's problems.

I believe in allowing people to fail and learn from it. I believe in allowing consequences (both good and bad) to occur for the growth of individuals. I believe that manknd needs to be held accountable for their actions and choices in life. I do not take joy in witnessing the destruction of people due to their choices. It is very sad, actually, but it must happen for them to change and grow. To not allow it to happen is a disservice to an individual. Oh, don't get me wrong, I also believe in forgiveness and mercy and grace, but just because there is forgiveness, doesn't mean there is no consequence. I will help anyone who is sorry for what they've done and truly wants to change. I will offer a hand up to anybody. Even so, when you do wrong, you must endure the consequences for what you've done and learn from it.

You should have suffered the consequences for your promiscuous pre-marital behavior and subsequent out of wedlock pregnancy but instead you turned to the government to support your "sins". It doesn't matter that you paid it back. The government programs were there when you needed them - something you want to deny to others.

*I did suffer the consequences for it. And, I'm glad for it. I learned alot from that.

-Punish women for having sex by forcing births (No. allow unborn human beings to live because they have a right to)

-Punish the unemployed for being lazy by denying benefits (No. deny benefits after a time of grace so that individuals will get up and get a job. There are no jobs. Didn't you just post a big long cut and paste about why they aren't hiring? Trying to have it both ways. Geez.

There are still jobs to be had. everywhere.

My own brother has been collecting benefits and says "why should I work when I can stay home and get the funds directly deposited for doing nothing?" He wont even look for work until the benefits are near ready to dry up.)

Then obviously his unemployment is enough for him to live off of. Not true for family men and women who have mortgages, car payments, food, utilities, etc.. to pay for. They can barely make it on unemployment.

His wife works, too. They have a mortgage and children. But with his unemployment check, they can get by, so why bother working until it expires? That's how people think.

-Punish the single mom for having the baby by cutting aid (No. Motivate the single mom to work for her food. Nothing in life is free.)

That's right. I forgot your unrealistic plan. Live in a $100/week apartment with roommates and work at at McDonald's (or Walmart) and go to school to be a CNA at night and I forget who's supposed to watch her kid or how she's going to get to and from school and work. I guess she'll have to find one of those magical apartments right near a bus line that goes to both. And paying for school? Well, again, the details are sketchy.

You know, this is funny. You think it is unrealistic to live in a one room apt. at $100. a week and save your money and work and sacrifice your way up to a better life style. People in other countries live outside and/or in a box and don't complain. American's don't count their blessings.

-Punish the medicaid nursing home recipient because his/her family couldn't supply 24/7 skilled nursing care. (No. insist that families care for thier own aging parents and use nursing home care as a last resort unless you can pay for it yourself.)

People cannot afford to give up a job to take care of an invalid parent even if they get their SS checks.

Why not? Their parents were obviously living on it. It's not that. It's that kids are self centered and don't want to sacrifice for a while or give up anything in order to care for their parents until they are gone.

Their homes are also not set up to handle the 24/7 needs of someone who requires nursing home care.

Bull. Set it up then. I work in a nursing home. The room has a bed and a dresser.

Not to mention that they might not have the room.

Put the bed in you living room then.

People in nursing homes require skilled care to care for a multitude of health issues. They need to be monitored and can't be left alone.

No they don't. 90% of all the elderly in nursing homes could be cared for at home if there was someone who was willing to do it. What did they do before nursing homes were invented? Families took care of their parents.

This is not realistic in someone's home. Yeah, yeah, I know patty the great did it so everyone should be able to do it.

You always criticize me for making sweeping generalizations about the tea party or republicans. But in this post you have made sweeping generalizations about the unemployed (they're not all like your brother) or those who put their parent in a nursing home, or single moms who need help.

That's why I said "most" or "a great majority" of these people. "Most" of the unemployed cheat the system. "Most" of the elderly do not need to be in nursing homes. "Most" single moms can work and get by without help from the government.

And on top of it, you believe that everything the government provides for people is the result of their bad behavior. (No. Everything that the government provides for people comes from the governments willingness to give a handout to them so that they will desire dependence upon them.) Did you desire a dependence on them when you got your handout? Oh, I know, you're the exception.

Yes, I did. And will state again that it was wrong of me to do so back then. Just because I took advantage of the help the government gave, doesn't mean it was the right thing for the government to do for me. It wasn't.

I guess getting old and receiving SS and medicare is the "bad behavior" of not dying young.

(No. people who recive SS and medicare are entitled to it because they paid into the program all their lives and expect a return on their investment)

I guess unemployment benefits is the result of the bad behavior of getting laid off.

No. That's the results from a president who makes horrible policies and encourages a socialized nation.You'll have to explain this one since unemployement compensation has been around a long time. The current unemployment is the continuation of the rising unemployment that started under bush when it went from 4% to 8.1% and we were losing 750,000 jobs a month when Obama took office and now have had 7 months of positive job growth. So, even for you this is a very strange and of course unsubstantiated claim.

We've got to nip all this bad behavior in the bud. Because these are the big government entitlement programs. Everything else pales in comparison. True.

But the minute some problem or disaster happens, even a man-made one, like the BP oil spill, or the wall street crash, those on the right yap "what is the government going to do about it?"

That's because those are the exact things that the government is supposed to be there for. Disasters and defense and protection for its citizens. P.S. (They should have let wall street crash.)

The government is supposed to be there for natural disasters and pay for the relief. For man-made (BP) disasters, the company should pay for all of it. I don't want my tax dollars to pay for BP's mistakes and lies. But when Obama got a $20 billion escrow account for BP to pay for their spill, republicans called it a shakedown and defended BP.

I don't feel that the government should have to pay for BP's mistakes. I was talking about natural disaters.

But try to regulate a company like BP to prevent or address future catastrophies and the right again yaps "that's big government, it stifles job growth, blah, blah, blah". What total hypocrites.

...............................

Suffering the consequences for our own actions is how we grow. I suppose you never let your children suffer the consequences for their actions. You probably fixed all their mistakes and covered for their every wrong doing. In so doing you failed as a parent.

The government is not our parent. That aside, how dare you speak about my parenting of which you know nothing. I am a very good parent. As was my late husband. As teachers we had high standards for both behavior and academic achievement for our children. Both are college educated, both married college educated people and all four have good jobs. There were consequences for their bad behavior. And they all turned out great. I guess the proof of my parenting is in the pudding. And I'll hold my kids and my parenting up against anyone's.

*I said you "probably" fixed all their problems. I get that from desire for the government to be the 'fixer' of American's problems.

I don't expect the government to solve all the problems but I do expect them to provide safety nets for the least among us, just like they provide corporate welfare for the most among us.

And just to let you know in no uncertain terms: ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY KIDS ARE OFF LIMITS. GOT IT??

You should have suffered the consequences for your promiscuous pre-marital behavior and subsequent out of wedlock pregnancy but instead you turned to the government to support your "sins". It doesn't matter that you paid it back. The government programs were there when you needed them - something you want to deny to others.

*I did suffer the consequences for it. And, I'm glad for it. I learned alot from that.

Any "suffering" that you claim was lessened by whatever government aid you were more than happy to accept and for which you now criticize others in true hypocritical fashion.

That's right. I forgot your unrealistic plan. Live in a $100/week apartment with roommates and work at at McDonald's (or Walmart) and go to school to be a CNA at night and I forget who's supposed to watch her kid or how she's going to get to and from school and work. I guess she'll have to find one of those magical apartments right near a bus line that goes to both. And paying for school? Well, again, the details are sketchy.

You know, this is funny. You think it is unrealistic to live in a one room apt. at $100. a week and save your money and work and sacrifice your way up to a better life style. People in other countries live outside and/or in a box and don't complain. American's don't count their blessings.

You left out who was going to pay for the childcare while this woman is working and going to school - day and night (work during day, school at night or visa versa) or how she's supposed to get to both job and school. Public transportation is not that good. Our standard of living in this country is such that living in a box and not complaining is not acceptable, despite the fact that that is where republicans want us to go.

There are no jobs. Didn't you just post a big long cut and paste about why they aren't hiring? Trying to have it both ways. Geez.

There are still jobs to be had. everywhere.

Minimum wage jobs. Maybe. But you can't post "why I'm not hiring" which blames the government, of course, and then say there are jobs everywhere. Oh, I forgot, yes you can. You're a hypocrite.

People cannot afford to give up a job to take care of an invalid parent even if they get their SS checks.

Why not? Their parents were obviously living on it. It's not that. It's that kids are self centered and don't want to sacrifice for a while or give up anything in order to care for their parents until they are gone.

The elderly parents can live off of it because their homes are paid off and their families grown. Parents who have children at home with college in the future, a mortgage, car payments, etc.. cannot afford to quit their job. As usual you have unrealistic "solutions" to complex problems.

Not to mention that they might not have the room.

Put the bed in you living room then.

People in nursing homes require skilled care to care for a multitude of health issues. They need to be monitored and can't be left alone.

No they don't. 90% of all the elderly in nursing homes could be cared for at home if there was someone who was willing to do it. What did they do before nursing homes were invented? Families took care of their parents.

The nursing home medical personnel make the determination if someone qualifies for 24/7 skilled care. But I guess you know more than all of them collectively. Before there were nursing homes, people didn't live as long or with such disabling conditions. Like strokes, etc..

Cleo's your last paragraph is exactly what I was thinking in response to pattys suggestion that kids just need to take care of their aging parents.

I do agree that some people could take care of their aging parents, but certainly not every aging parent.

Some aging folks don't even have children. People are living much longer these days and many of them are living with horrible debilatating illnesses because of new treatments and medicines. Many of those people require nursing care and medical equipment that cannot be installed in private homes.

Trying to answer the problems of our aging population with one simple solution of home care is assinine and stupid. I would said naive but I had to consider the source - the person with all the hands on experience.