I have a few opinions on this. To be honest, I did not listen to her whole spiel because it is just more of the same old same old.
The US has become a nation of softies and wussies. We quarrel like spoiled children in a sandbox over our toys, all the while blaming others for our predicament. In our childish insecurities, we look to big government to provide everything for us. Yet, we forget what made us great in the first place.
This nation was built on a desire for freedom and independence. It was built by real men and real women standing tall and strong against formidable odds. They did not need a nannie to care for them. They designed a government to be "of the people, for the people, and by the people". They feared big government for good reason. Their design provided for the "common defense", and guaranteed freedom for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Do we still recognize the import of these words?
Do we remember what it means to stand on our own two feet, depending on our strength and intellect to, not only survive, but prosper and grow? Can we still stand in the breach and defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic? For our enemy is within. It is us.
We, as a nation, have forgotten God. We now look for something else to provide the security we so desperately long for. We flail around in helpless abandon searching for the mythical messiah to save us. We see big government as the answer for everything, including our financial security and our health. We desire an existence that is long and free of any impediments that may cause pain, discomfort, or effort on our part. In return, we pledge all the fruits of our labor, our individuality, our freedom, and yes, our very soul.
We have seated a socialist president because, as a nation, that is our desire. We deserve the consequences!
David Walker was GOA (Goverment Accountability Officer) for 10 years 1998 2008. He quite or resigned and now is trying to get people to realize our goverment's responsibility and financial problem.
S.E. Cupp
- FOXNews.com
- July 21, 2009
Don't Be Fooled by Obama's '45 Million' Uninsured
When the numbers are crunched, it turns out that only 11 million legal American citizens who would like health insurance don't have it, and even that figure is likely high. If we take it at 11 million, that's less than 4% of the country.
There's that number again: 45 million.
That's supposedly the number of people in America who don't have health insurance. How do I know that? Well, for one, President Obama's said it, like, 45 million times.
Democrats also love to say it. Michael Moore quoted it in his last movie, "SICKO" which in hindsight may as well have been a commercial for Obama-care.
Enter "45 mil" into the Google search bar, and before you're even done typing it will fill out the rest for you: "45 million uninsured." Finish typing in the search term and Google will bring up 147,000 results. The figure is quite literally everywhere. And now it's being used by the Obama administration to convince average Americans of two things: the uninsured represent a sizeable group in America; and Obama's plan will make health care more affordable and accessible to everyone, especially those 45 million.
Both premises are patently false -- the number of uninsured is far fewer than 45 million, and the Congressional Budget Office finds that Obamacare will practically bankrupt us, while simultaneously penalizing citizens and businesses who refuse coverage. It will also probably mean that the quality of our health care system will plummet, countless patients will not receive the life-saving care they need, good doctors will be driven out of business, and fewer people will actually want to become doctors. But 45 million Americans will finally get health insurance.
Considering the scope of Obama's massive proposal for health care overhaul, shouldn't we be considering how the vast majority of Americans will be affected, as opposed to just a small minority? (And, even a smaller minority than is often suggested?) Indeed, isn't it the number of insured Americans that should matter, since they are the ones whose medical coverage is about to drastically change for good?
This number, the number of insured Americans, is not an easy figure to find. Just try Googling it and you'll navigate through a frustrating labyrinth of dead ends, most of which lead you directly back to that uninsured "45 million" number. Eventually I had to ask the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Census Bureau to get an answer.
It turns out that 253.4 million Americans -- or a whopping 83% of the country -- have health insurance, whether it's through private insurers, employer-based coverage, a government program or Medicaid/Medicare. The majority, 202 million of the 253.4 million, pay for private insurance.
And as a number of clever skeptics have recently pointed out, breaking down the 45 million number reveals that far fewer folks are actually uninsured. Nearly 10 million of those 45 million aren't even American citizens, and nearly 17 million of them can easily afford insurance, but choose not to get it (these folks will be taxed under Obamacare for opting out.) When the numbers are crunched, it turns out that only 11 million legal American citizens who would like health insurance don't have it, and even that figure is likely high. If we take it at 11 million, that's less than 4% of the country.
Now, it's important that we get health care to those 4%, of course. But is it really necessary to rip apart the health care system we currently have to do it? Yes, we all want better coverage that's more affordable and easier to navigate. Obamacare doesn't solve any of these. All it does is help less than 4% of the country get health insurance, while putting the rest of us through a tangled maze of bureaucracy, for worse care that costs just as much, maybe more. The long-term effects are even more frightening, but in the short term do we really want to penalize the many in favor of the (very) few?
Been spending time in the word I see.
Sorry LL- It's just that that did not sound like you.
I'm thinking that there must be some way to tie govt. so that you could tap into it as needed just like food stamps but after so many times you would need to be willing to be retrained (your choice of approved options) so you could afford basic health care yourself.
So the people at Fox news say the number of uninsured is only 11 million rather than 45. Does anyone really trust Fox to gather accurate information when they obviously have a vested interest in politics? I have seen a lot of exagerations and half truths from that organization.
I am not to have any political opinions? Well I have to say in all honesty that I believe very little of the political mumbo jumbo that is sent our way but that I do pay attention to what is happening around me. I am not impressed at all with the speed and stupidity that is being shown by the current regime. When a bill is pushed thru that is so long that no one can read it and has no idea what it says or what the end result will be and they vote it thru, then I have to honestly question whether our country is being lead or run and cohorst. We happen to live in a part of the country that is currently in the bottom of the pit. The official unemployment rate is 14.5%, the real, better than 25%. there is a forclosed house in nearly every mile and at least one house for sale in every local town on nearly every block.
We have personally not been without insurance for a number of years, but we have also lived at one time on welfare. Welfare was a blessing when we were desparate but it was a greater blessing to be off of it. Without insurance we would also be in fairly poor shape as my health has added about $30,000 worth of bills every 2-3 yrs for a while now. The last month will total close to $10,000 minimum. We will pay at least 20% of that. But insurance is also not without cost. And now much of it is also tied into your credit rating making it even more difficult for people in the current status to meet the end bill.
I know of one place where 2 H women went to the hospital to have the same surgery the same day. One had CHA, the other had nothing. In the end they both paid the same Out of pocket. My neighbor lady went to buy new glasses. afterward she was at a friends and they happened to notice they both had the same kind. One had insurance, the other one didn't. the out of pocket cost, Identical.
I have seen enough government intervention that it is absolutely ridiculus. We have become a group of people that someone thinks must be guided thru everything, cannot be trusted to have any common sense and must have a backup for everything. I am glad that people that have disasters befall them are able to have at least some kind of support for the rest of their days. Unfortunately that backup is full of holes and pitfalls. Yes we have unemployment and workers comp. try getting it. It depends greatly on many side factors. A college professor I know lost his job and did not get any unemployment, fortunately he was able to get another job but it will require moving 600 miles. Our son has been supposed to get unemployment 3 times so far this yr. he never got any at all. I know people that have been severely injured on the job that cannot get worker's comp without giving up a 3rd of their benefits to a lawyer because that is the only way the system will allow their claim. I have a friend that lost her leg at 15 to cancer. she is now 50 and cannot get insurance for her health at all, nor can she get any other benefits, she never had a job long enough. Her husband is now unemployed and they are making it so far but in sept his unemployment runs out and they may soon be homeless. Oh there are some jobs he can get about 40 miles away that are minumum wage but by the time he spends the gas to get there and put in his time, he cannot pay his house payment, nor eat.
My own father worked very hard his entire life, but because your SSI is tied into your last 2 yrs of income and he had to sell his cows because he could not take care of them and my mother with cancer at the same time, He had no income those last 2 yrs, he now is eligible for $700 a month retirement. another couple I know personally is getting $300 a month. this man was still trying to work full time when he turned 80.
Call me cynical or whatever, but I just don't think that we can write a bunch of stuff on paper, print up a bunch of paper money with no backing behind it and say Hallelujah we're saved from disaster.
Nor do I believe that we should just sit back and allow a group of people that comprise less than 2 % of the population decide how things should be run, nor let folks that have no idea of what a farm even is decide how to raise the animals on one. If you aren't willing to be a part of the solution don't become part of the problem.
No I did not snoops this but here is another version of Obama's numbers from Newsmax.com
1. Obama's '47 Million Uninsured' Claim Is False
President Barack Obama claimed during his Wednesday night press conference that there are 47 million Americans without health insurance.
A simple check with the U.S. Census Bureau would have told him otherwise.
Obama said: "This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance."
That assertion conflicts with data in the Census Bureau report "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007." The report was issued in August 2008 and contains the most up-to-date official data on the number of uninsured in the U.S.
The report discloses that there were 45.65 million people in the U.S. who did not have health insurance in 2007.
However, it also reveals that there were 9.73 million foreigners foreign-born non-citizens who were in the country in 2007 included in that number. So the number of uninsured Americans was actually 35.92 million.
And of those, "there were also 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year who did not choose to purchase health insurance," CNSNews stated in a report based on the Census Bureau data.
That brings the number of Americans who lack health insurance presumably for financial reasons down less than 27 million.
The Census Bureau report also shows that the number of people without insurance actually went down in 2007 compared to the previous year from 47 million to 45.65 million while the number with insurance rose from 249.8 million to 253.4 million.
The next Census Bureau report disclosing health insurance data, with 2008 numbers, is scheduled to be released in August, and could figure in the healthcare reform debate.
Does anyone really trust Fox to gather accurate information when they obviously have a vested interest in politics? ----Can anyone trust NBC,ABC CNN, or CNBC? I've never heard them give both sides of the story. In fact, newspapers themselves have lost the art of reporting news and now report slanting news.-- calledoutPTL
According to OBAMA's health system, my husband would no longer be able to get medical help because he has lived his 70 years and isn't productive (meaning earning wages and not quality of life) and since being a diabetes or having heart problems is being called preventable by Obama, well it's just "tough luck." Ted Kennedy would not have been able to get medical help under Obama's plan either if it would have been in effect. People read up on this and see what can happen. This effects you, your children and grandchildren. What do you want to for them?
To many people make decisions on emotion and don't look beyond the now. calledoutPTL
According to OBAMA's health system, my husband would no longer be able to get medical help because he has lived his 70 years and isn't productive (meaning earning wages and not quality of life) and since being a diabetes or having heart problems is being called preventable by Obama, well it's just "tough luck."
CalledOut, that's an interesting comment. I don't know that much about the Obama plan, but I find it hard to believe his plan would include a provision like that when the imputus of the plan is to provide health care for more people, not less. Are you sure your information is correct? I don't know, but it seems likely you may be listening to scare tactics. Can you provide a link that supports your claim? I would like to look into it.
No links, but I'm sure there are some, just listening to all the news. Scare tactics? Truth can be sobering and scarey. One of the doctors told me yesterday, who tries to keep up on the news, says he can understand this when I mentioned it to him. There has to be a cap on spending someplace. Look at history Stan, why is there such an influx of people in Canada comming to the states for help? Wouldn't that be a hint, that maybe it isn't working? When certain diseases such as heart disease, DM, etc, are called preventable, brings to mind a motive of trying to have a superior race. How does a superior race eradicate the imperfect? Do you think that since alcohol can cause liver disease, that alcohol should be outlawed? Cigerettes because lung disease is connected to it? (Which wouldn't be such a bad idea, but I would be against it, for the reason we are losing to many rights. Can you see where this can lead to? Part of the bill before was that if you were 30 pounds overweight, would hinder your health care as well. Believe me, at our age we have to be looking at the health care issue. AARP use to be for it, but now are many are changing their mind.
calledoutPTL
It's associated with the Wall Street Journal, a right leaning organization. The subject matter is insurance for retirees and mentions AARP. Is this the issue you are speaking of?
Question: How will the health-overhaul bills impact retiree benefits from former employers?
Answer: The broad answer is that these folks will be affected just like anyone else they will be required to have health coverage that meets certain minimum requirements, whether from a former employer or some other source. The House bill actually has a provision that could temporarily help defray the cost of retiree coverage, with reinsurance for certain expensive claims. The Senate health committee bill has a similar provision.
However, David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP, warns that any change in the law may give some employers a pretext to back away from retiree coverage, even if it doesnt really affect them. It could be an excuse, he says.
OS said: "We have seated a socialist president because, as a nation, that is our desire. We deserve the consequences!"
I wish someone would define just where that thin mystery line is that snakes through our government system and divides socialism from non-socialism. Everyone who touts that seems to be so sure that we were not socialist before this election, but we are now. Some say it's because our tax rate is going up from 36% to 39% for incomes above 250k. (Never mind it was much higher in former republican administrations and it's lower for the rest of us).
We are a nation with a mixture of socialistic and capitalistic methods. When FDR proposed the minimum wage the government work programs, the right cried socialism. Same with the GI bill and workers compensation, and any bill that protected the little guy from the greedy big guy. Medicare and Medicaid were decried as socialism. How about our public education and public infrastructure? Are those pure capitalistic? What about government college grants? Socialistic? I'm sure those fighting them at the time said so.
LM got this as an email the other day, I think it fits in here real good since we have to know who is going to pay for this great change that we are supposed to support.
545 vs 300,000,000
EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.
545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does..
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power..
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it........... Is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren't so darned true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
Taxes drove me
to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
And I still have to 'press 1' for English!?
I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!
Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating government or whole community ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation.[1][2][3] Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working classpolitical movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society, however, socialism itself is not a political system or ideology; it is a way of distributing goods and services. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution and become the transitional stage from capitalism to communism.[4][5]
Here is Wikipedia's definition of socialism. The bold text and underlined sentence I added for emphasis. Stan, you are correct. Socialism in this country did not begin in 2008.
In the 1930s, then president Roosevelt, of Jewish descent like Karl Marx, saw the need for socialism and liberalism to save the country from the devastating effects of economic depression. This depression was brought about largely by capitalistic greed coupled with self-centered short-sightedness. In other words, the financiers saw capitalism as benefitting the individual and made decisions based on that premise rather than seeing their actions as impacting society as a whole.
This, then is the premise of Socialism. The individual is not capable of taking care of him or her self, therefore some other entity must do so. Social Democrats see a large government, overseeing every aspect of society, as the answer. In order to do so, there must be a redistributing of money.
The hardworking, self-motivated individual must give a portion of his hard earned wealth to the middleman, i.e. government, so it may be distributed to the "poor and down-trodden". The insidious effects of socialism is to create a permanent underclass, totally dependent on big government from cradle to grave. It creates a large, unwieldy, parasitic, bureaucratic organ called government that must also be supported. The burden of supporting both of these large segments of our society falls upon...who? The Capitalist!
Be it good or bad, it cannot be denied that this is what this once great country has come to. We are an increasingly socialist nation. We have a large, permanent underclass and a huge bureaucracy administrating the redistribution of wealth. Both capitalism and socialism include good things and bad things. The big question is this; can President Obama find a proper balance of the two?
Note. The greatest socialist experiment of the 20th century proved to be a dismal failure. What makes us think we can do any better than Russia?
Note II. Loosely translated, the name Roosevelt means field of flowers or field of roses. Perhaps FDR was seeing the world through rose colored glasses.
This message has been edited by OriginalSinnick on Jul 30, 2009 7:36 AM This message has been edited by OriginalSinnick on Jul 30, 2009 7:28 AM
How many senators and representatives are going to actually read the 1,000 page bill much less do any research on it? Contact your senators and representatives. Let them know how you feel. calledoutPTL
This message has been edited by erv123 on Aug 2, 2009 8:03 AM
Caution: This forum may contain statements and comments that are offensive. If you are easily offended, please exit this forum now.
By using this forum you agree to be accountable and liable for your post's. All postings are the responsibility of the posting participant. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the management.
