I ant argue if that is true or not GMill, becauseI dont really know (noe does anyone) how much either will help the economy. But I do know that no where in our constitution does it give the president or congress the right to make such plans available or manipulate the markets in any such way.
I ant argue if that is true or not GMill, becauseI dont really know (noe does anyone) how much either will help the economy. But I do know that no where in our constitution does it give the president or congress the right to make such plans available or manipulate the markets in any such way.
Well, Obama is out to get rid of all the Constitutional "hindrances" to the power of the presidency, and all the pesky freedoms granted to the people and the states not granted to the fed. So, I guess he's making an end-run around the Constitution for the time being..
I ant argue if that is true or not GMill, becauseI dont really know (noe does anyone) how much either will help the economy. But I do know that no where in our constitution does it give the president or congress the right to make such plans available or manipulate the markets in any such way.
And as I said "it probably helped" you are correct in no one knows how much. And as I stated I'm not sayin' its right ,wrong or anything about who has the power for what ...Just stating that IF they were HE_LL BENT on spending on SOMETHING then at least the average guy and the auto dealerships at least both got a piece of the pie rather than a big wig CEO in an ivory tower somewhere ...
I do know that no where in our constitution does it give the president or congress the right to make such plans available or manipulate the markets in any such way.
To that point, I agree 100% GMill. However to Cabinets point, while I can say that power is becoming an issue with Obama-----what administration has power not been an issue with??? I dont want to get into aa Bush/Obama thing.....but parts of the Patriot Act, wire tapping, ect. were not exactly granting more power to the people.
I agree with that, Vulcher. It's not a republican/democrat thiong, it's a progressive/the rest of us thing. Progressives are polluting both parties to the extent that there are n o real differences between them.
To that point, I agree 100% GMill. However to Cabinets point, while I can say that power is becoming an issue with Obama-----what administration has power not been an issue with??? I dont want to get into aa Bush/Obama thing.....but parts of the Patriot Act, wire tapping, ect. were not exactly granting more power to the people.
I agree with you totally here. What I have an issue with is people that think the government was evil for the patriot act, I do not agree with the patriot act, but think this health care plan and cap and trade and all the other government taxes are great things. It's the same thing just for a different cause. It is taking power away from the people and handing it over to the government.
President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.
or instead of expanding government at every turn (that costs more) you could stop taking everything over.
The article:
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes.
dont tell us till its too late
The article:
Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.
the system isnt even set up and all the things that the evil heartless conservatives and libertarians said would happen are happening. more taxes on more people. Its not just the rich anymore.
The article:
During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care -- promised without increasing the federal deficit -- must be paid for.
thats what ive been saying all along.
eventually, you will always run out of "other people's money"
Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson is calling the depiction, politically mean spirited and dangerous.
Hutchinson is challenging the group or individual that put up the poster to have the courage and decency to publicly identify themselves.
"Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery," says Hutchinson, "it is mean-spirited and dangerous."
at least the comments on the article point out the hypocricy of the left:
"So, it's ok to depict Bush as the devil with horns and to look like a Nazi but as soon as "Dear Leader" is depicted this way people are up in arms? RIDICULOUS!!!"
free speech is free speech folks. again to quote H.R. Clinton:
H.R. Clinton:
WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!
one cannot complain about and ridicule a president that is not on your side then turn around and complain when "your" president gets ridiculed without being a hypocrite.
And this is why I come to this debate room everyday with my coffee in hand and a smile on my face. I can't get enough of you guys (gals if there are any) on here.
I think Obama will keep his promise 100% to NOT raise our taxes by one single dime. Severl thousand dimes for certain, but not one single one. I mean come on, if you can take one, why not take them all?
obama promised greater government "goodness" at the highest and largest levels, increasing the benefits it will provide. Thomas Jefferson tried to warn Americans that, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
"There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said, adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
Obama:
"Well, as I've said, I think we maybe are beginning to see the end of the recession"
But I thought that was the whole idea... HOPE and CHANGE... now it's maybe?
thefreedictionary.com:
"HOPE"
To wish for something with expectation of its fulfillment
What was that saying?... "wish in one hand and crap in the other"
And why the middle class pockets? Like it's not hard enough for people to afford good and proper healthcare (referencing myself of course), but now they might take a little more out of our pockets so that we can help pay for... more?
Greenspan:
"Collapse, I think, is now off the table"
It's only been since I've been active on here that I've been diving in to the politics scene, and I'm begining to wonder... Do our politicians always use these kinds of verbs "maybe" "hope" "I think"?
Is it normal to have a lack of confidence in our government?
I like the woman that told Specter that the government can't successfully run Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security or even the Cash for Clunkers program, so what makes them think they can run one-seventh of the U.S. economy.
when W was in office and his approval ratings were in the 40's and his policy was in the 30's (and the Democratic congress was in the 20's) the Republicans went around saying things like "you cant govern by a poll" and "polls mean nothing to a leader"
now as Obama's approval ratings are starting to take a turn for the worse (in the low 50's now; before much higher) and his policies are polling in the 30's and 40's, the republicans are saying things like "look at the polls! the people dont want this"
cant have it both ways.
same ***. different toilet.
ill tell you what the people want from both parties:
THE PEOPLE WANT THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THEIR LIVES
that is all. If the government would adopt a more "live and let live" policy, the people may like the government a bit more. just protect the rights that we are born with. dont violate them, or create more.
“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I’m angry,”
Who said this? The same man that is saying to stop the "mobs" of people protesting against his healthcare plan. Now why is it ok for people to speak out for him, but not against him? It's funny that a "Community Organizer" gets so upset when the community organizes against him. The DNC is all about free speech as long as they are the only ones speaking.
Also speaking of hypocrits, some of them who are in the mold of retirees and babyboomers who feel as though they have given something extra special to society and now want a nice spot on the land----and also sit on groups for Tea Parties and scream during meetings about wanting govt out of healthcare.....What would these people do if we took away their medicare and medicaid supplements to their medicare benefits for large hospital bills???Something tells me those programs dont qualify under the same idea as other govt. health care paid programs they so viahmently protest.
Also speaking of hypocrits, some of them who are in the mold of retirees and babyboomers who feel as though they have given something extra special to society and now want a nice spot on the land----and also sit on groups for Tea Parties and scream during meetings about wanting govt out of healthcare.....What would these people do if we took away their medicare and medicaid supplements to their medicare benefits for large hospital bills???Something tells me those programs dont qualify under the same idea as other govt. health care paid programs they so viahmently protest.
Thats why I don't rely on Medicare, or Social Security. As a matter of fact I don't pay into Social Security. I pay in the the Texas Municipal Retirement System and a HSA account. I don't want to have to rely on the government when my time for retirement comes. I honestly don't want them involved in my healthcare. I can decide what is best for me and I am trying to plan accordingly because at this point in time, I still have that right.
ive heard that these "mobs" are being trained how to seem larger than they are and that they are planted.
i have no problem with that even if that is the case.
it is yet another hypocrisy when you take into account ACORN.
i know that if my representative has a town hall meeting i will go and cheer or jeer when or if either is applicable. I am not paid by the insurance companies. I am not well dressed. I just want the freedom to chose my health care provider, and insurance company.
we have all seen page 16 of the bill where it states that new enrollment and changed in existing coverage will stop once the bill is enacted, thus over a period of time, eliminating private health care. but few of us know about page 59 where it talks of the government making electronic "funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice" this translates to access to private accounts without the consent of the owner of the account.
or what about page 72 where it talks about the regulations that the remaining privare health care must conform to. if they dont conform to it then they are taxed. text of bill
it is not the governments job to regulate private industry. businesses do not need to be regulated by the government. government control of a private business is Fascist.
Here is a one page essay titled "But Don't Businesses Need to be 'Regulated'?"
Orwellian? witch hunt? a submission of fourth amendment rights? hypocritical ?(when viewed in light of the patriot act)
any other thoughts on the program and ensuing email address?
My main problem with this is that is it a major misappropriation of resources. With all the problems we are facing right now both at home and threats from over seas, why is the White House concerned with goofy emails that people forward around to speak out against the administration and the healthcare plan? This President is way more concerned with his popularity than he is with facing actual problems.
Orwellian? witch hunt? a submission of fourth amendment rights? hypocritical ?(when viewed in light of the patriot act)
any other thoughts on the program and ensuing email address?
My main problem with this is that is it a major misappropriation of resources. With all the problems we are facing right now both at home and threats from over seas, why is the White House concerned with goofy emails that people forward around to speak out against the administration and the healthcare plan? This President is way more concerned with his popularity than he is with facing actual problems.
and the other thought on this comes from our very own secretary of state, H.R. Clinton: “WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!”
Orwellian? witch hunt? a submission of fourth amendment rights? hypocritical ?(when viewed in light of the patriot act)
any other thoughts on the program and ensuing email address?
My main problem with this is that is it a major misappropriation of resources. With all the problems we are facing right now both at home and threats from over seas, why is the White House concerned with goofy emails that people forward around to speak out against the administration and the healthcare plan? This President is way more concerned with his popularity than he is with facing actual problems.
and the other thought on this comes from our very own secretary of state, H.R. Clinton: “WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!”
If President Bush had asked citizens to report fellow citizens who expressed dissenting opinions, Nancy Pelosi would have drafted articles of impeachment.
Actually JPCLot, Bush Administration did want people to report any suspicious activity of their neighbors, ect. and *** Cheney in particular. Of course Pelosi had about half a dozen other things she couldve asked for impeachment on----but thats neither here nor there. I think the simple fact should be pointed out that, at least it seems, that anyone who holds the office of the president is a rather power hungry fellow who wants as little real dissent as possible-----despite what their politican side may say.
Actually JPCLot, Bush Administration did want people to report any suspicious activity of their neighbors, ect. and *** Cheney in particular. Of course Pelosi had about half a dozen other things she couldve asked for impeachment on----but thats neither here nor there. I think the simple fact should be pointed out that, at least it seems, that anyone who holds the office of the president is a rather power hungry fellow who wants as little real dissent as possible-----despite what their politican side may say.
First of all, if Pelosi or anyone else would have had a legal leg to stand on, they would have tried to impeach President Bush, but disagreeing with him isn't enough of a reason.
Secondly, asking people to keep an eye on their neighbors for suspicious behavior after a massive terrosist attack that killed 3000 people is nothing like asking people to forward emails speaking out against a healthcare bill that much of the country is against. I agree wioth the notion that if Bush had done something like this he would have been crucified, but honestly the two are totally unrelated and it doesn't change the fact that the current administration is wrong in doing this for a number of reasons. The left in this country has always claimed to be the supporters of free speech, but times... They are a changin...
Comments
And as I said "it probably helped" you are correct in no one knows how much. And as I stated I'm not sayin' its right ,wrong or anything about who has the power for what ...Just stating that IF they were HE_LL BENT on spending on SOMETHING then at least the average guy and the auto dealerships at least both got a piece of the pie rather than a big wig CEO in an ivory tower somewhere ...
thats all i got
no seriously, who didnt? i wanna smack you.
or instead of expanding government at every turn (that costs more) you could stop taking everything over. dont tell us till its too late the system isnt even set up and all the things that the evil heartless conservatives and libertarians said would happen are happening. more taxes on more people. Its not just the rich anymore. thats what ive been saying all along.
eventually, you will always run out of "other people's money"
Video supporting the claim that Obama and other top Democrats want a single payer (socialist) health care system
The republic will cease to exist when Government takes from those who are industrious and gives to those that refuse to do work.
-Thomas Jefferson
it is regarded as great political commentary.
some of the comments:
"Great stuff from the talented Friedman (as always). As "agents of chaos" go, W's right up there with the best of 'em"
"Poor Joker, he doesn't deserve this. Bush isn't good enough to wear his face."
fast forward to this week when a new poster made headlines. this one:
KTLA news only quoted one person in the article. at least the comments on the article point out the hypocricy of the left:
"So, it's ok to depict Bush as the devil with horns and to look like a Nazi but as soon as "Dear Leader" is depicted this way people are up in arms? RIDICULOUS!!!"
free speech is free speech folks.
again to quote H.R. Clinton: one cannot complain about and ridicule a president that is not on your side then turn around and complain when "your" president gets ridiculed without being a hypocrite.
And this is why I come to this debate room everyday with my coffee in hand and a smile on my face. I can't get enough of you guys (gals if there are any) on here.
But I thought that was the whole idea... HOPE and CHANGE... now it's maybe?
What was that saying?... "wish in one hand and crap in the other"
And why the middle class pockets? Like it's not hard enough for people to afford good and proper healthcare (referencing myself of course), but now they might take a little more out of our pockets so that we can help pay for... more?
It's only been since I've been active on here that I've been diving in to the politics scene, and I'm begining to wonder... Do our politicians always use these kinds of verbs "maybe" "hope" "I think"?
Is it normal to have a lack of confidence in our government?
Amen.
when W was in office and his approval ratings were in the 40's and his policy was in the 30's (and the Democratic congress was in the 20's) the Republicans went around saying things like "you cant govern by a poll" and "polls mean nothing to a leader"
now as Obama's approval ratings are starting to take a turn for the worse (in the low 50's now; before much higher) and his policies are polling in the 30's and 40's, the republicans are saying things like "look at the polls! the people dont want this"
cant have it both ways.
same ***. different toilet.
ill tell you what the people want from both parties:
THE PEOPLE WANT THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THEIR LIVES
that is all. If the government would adopt a more "live and let live" policy, the people may like the government a bit more. just protect the rights that we are born with. dont violate them, or create more.
Who said this? The same man that is saying to stop the "mobs" of people protesting against his healthcare plan. Now why is it ok for people to speak out for him, but not against him? It's funny that a "Community Organizer" gets so upset when the community organizes against him. The DNC is all about free speech as long as they are the only ones speaking.
i have no problem with that even if that is the case.
it is yet another hypocrisy when you take into account ACORN.
i know that if my representative has a town hall meeting i will go and cheer or jeer when or if either is applicable. I am not paid by the insurance companies. I am not well dressed. I just want the freedom to chose my health care provider, and insurance company.
we have all seen page 16 of the bill where it states that new enrollment and changed in existing coverage will stop once the bill is enacted, thus over a period of time, eliminating private health care.
but few of us know about page 59 where it talks of the government making electronic "funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice"
this translates to access to private accounts without the consent of the owner of the account.
or what about page 72 where it talks about the regulations that the remaining privare health care must conform to. if they dont conform to it then they are taxed.
text of bill
it is not the governments job to regulate private industry. businesses do not need to be regulated by the government. government control of a private business is Fascist.
Here is a one page essay titled
"But Don't Businesses Need to be 'Regulated'?"
Flag@whitehouse.gov
Orwellian?
witch hunt?
a submission of fourth amendment rights?
hypocritical ?(when viewed in light of the patriot act)
any other thoughts on the program and ensuing email address?
“WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!”
Secondly, asking people to keep an eye on their neighbors for suspicious behavior after a massive terrosist attack that killed 3000 people is nothing like asking people to forward emails speaking out against a healthcare bill that much of the country is against. I agree wioth the notion that if Bush had done something like this he would have been crucified, but honestly the two are totally unrelated and it doesn't change the fact that the current administration is wrong in doing this for a number of reasons. The left in this country has always claimed to be the supporters of free speech, but times... They are a changin...