![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 59°F ~ Low: 41°F |
|
Barack Obama...JUST ANOTHER POLITICIAN
Posted Friday, May 22, 2009, at 6:53 PM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
Barack Obama promised during his campaign that he was going to make a "net spending cut" in the federal government:
-Increased spending by over $1,000,000,000,000 over the next decade -Additional $250,000,000,000 for another financial bailout -President Bush expanded the federal budget by $700,000,000,000.....President Obama is adding an ADDITIONAL $1,000,000,000,000 to it. How is that "CHANGE"? Well, it's change alright, but it's change in the same direction that we were headed anyway. During his campaign he promised change and that's what we're getting. When the government has control of "private" industries, that is what we like to call socialism. Obama railed at the bonuses that the financial industry CEOs left with, but MADE Rick Wagoner step down as CEO of GM and (as reported by CNN) "General Motors' outgoing chief executive Rick Wagoner is eligible to receive more than $20 million in his retirement package, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission." But Obama's SO different than the Bush Administration. President Obama has forced Chrysler to file for bankruptcy and merge with Fiat, his administration has refused to let the banks pay back the money from the financial bailout, he has PROMISED all of these jobs for that enormous bill they passed (yet the unemployment rate is still going up). The liberals continue to say that this is all Bush's fault, at what point does Barack Obama get to stand up and say that HE has done something? Let's take a look at some of his campaign promises to you people: 1) "Allow five days of public comment before signing bills" - S.181 (the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009): Presented to the President: 1/28/09 - Signed: 1/29/09 --It took him just over a week to break this promise. So, either he's got a time machine so that he can come back and sign these bills or he just flat out lied about that "promise". 2) "I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House." -William J. Lynn (a former Raytheon lobbyist) is now Deputy Secretary of Defense. Oh, and Raytheon is a DEFENSE CONTRACTOR. -Cecilia Muņoz, former lobbyist for La Raza is now the director of intergovernmental affairs in the Executive Office of the President -Mark Patterson, the chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Public records show Patterson worked as a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs (A BANK and INVESTMENT GROUP) in 2008 3) "During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired." -Has ANYONE heard anything about this? Couldn't find it anywhere in the new budget...hmm... 4) "Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act, will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate." -This sure as HECK isn't happening. 5) Close Gitmo detainee prison -Doesn't look like HIS people in Congress want the terrorists in their backyards either Ok, I'm not going to sit here and say that he's broken every promise that he made during his campaign, he has kept some as well. But I am sick and tired of the liberals looking at this man as the Messiah. He is JUST LIKE ANY OTHER POLITICIAN. He said exactly what the Democrats wanted to hear to get elected and, now that he's in office, he's doing whatever he had planned on doing all along. To say that his administration is a "change" is just smoke and mirrors. He has implemented a budget for which this generation's great-grandchildren will still be paying. Now it's time for you left-wingers to get on here and tell me just what a GREAT MAN he is and that George Bush was the worst President we've ever had. I've already heard all of that, can't you come up with anything new? Let's see, Bill Clinton was the GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER, George Bush was Satan (granted, I think he quite possibly lost his mind in the last four years), and Barack Obama is the messiah. Nope, he's JUST ANOTHER POLITICIAN. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics Where is our state's "stimulus" money going?(52 ~ 6:29 PM, Nov 20)
Integrity
Once you've shredded your personal documents, then what?
Webb School Arts and Crafts Fair
The state of Missouri considers me to be a "threat"...
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Its the promises he isn't going to break that scare me the most. Like cap and trade on energy and socialized medicine. The only good thing to come out is I honestly believe he will be a one term pres and the american people seem to FINNALLY be wakeing up and see what's happening to our country. Before the normal crowd comes to blast me, I fully understand this insanity started well before Obama came into office.
I wish you WingNutz quit blaming all of what Congress is doing on the Pres. We Now have 3 branches of government after Bush/Cheney made us live through a dictatorship. As an Independent voter, It''s people like you that hope and pray the gop never again rise, just like the Confederacy. The GOP doesn't seem to understand it was their own incompetence that dug their g r a v e.
The Democrats are just filling in the hole.
R I P
Whatever the case, the Democrats are certainly not the answer! They are proving that. It's a nightmare up there right now, and they're running the show. Talking about digging a grave.
Good blog Tom. I am looking forward to a strong 3rd party conservative coming into play over the next couple years. I, for one, do not want the FEDERAL government legislating every move I make, we need less federal government and states gaining responsibility back.
The Democrats are just filling in the hole.
R I P
-- Posted by mayberry on Fri, May 22, 2009, at 8:58 PM
This is true the Democrats are filling the hole problem is they are filling it with taxpayers.
Its not just the pres fault its the entire govt. He just has some really wacked out ideas.its definetly time for several strong third party candidates.
Obama will battle Jimmy Carter for the worst president ever honor.
Unfortunately, the former administration was so absolutely pathetic and clueless that it is going to take a great deal of sacrifice to get us out of the mess we're in. The Democrats historically have had to come in after woefully failed Republican administrations to clean up their messes.
We now have two wars to pay for plus the results of corporate greed and incompetence. Yes, the taxpayers are going to suffer, but this wouldn't have to be if the Bush Administration had practiced even a sliver of stewardship while in office.
As far as Jimmy Carter being the worst President ever, I think Bush far exceeded him in this category. Bush was simply a JOKE.
And so it begins. I listed numbers and facts. Please be so kind as to do the same.
I would love to know which "Democrats historically have had to come in after woefully failed Republican administrations to clean up their messes".
The "corporate greed and incompetence" aren't the responsibility of the government (except for in socialist regimes like the current one).
As for the "two wars" that we're in, how about doing some research:
107th Congress
SJ Res 45 - Rollcall: 77-23
HJ Res 114 - Rollcall: 296-133
Congress (INCLUDING SOME DEMOCRATS) authorized the military action about which you liberals cry so much (Iraq).
As for Afghanistan, that would be:
107th Congress
SJ Res 23 - Rollcall: 98-0 (2 not voting)
HJ Res 64 - Rollcall: 420-1
Please enlighten us "volfanatic" with your wisdom. Rather than with just you spouting off your personal opinion about these matters tell us in cold hard facts why EVERYTHING the Republicans do is wrong. Again, I am not defending George W. Bush, but I get sick and tired of listening to the same old "Bush was pathetic, Bush was terrible, Bush was a joke" blathering that you people normally come up with. C'mon, be creative, but use facts.
One last thing, just how long have the Democrats had control of Congress? And just what have they accomplished there?
How many on here still have their Obama bumper stickers. His brown shirts already are active in Arkansas. I read where a citizen got pulled over and cited for having a counter obama bumper sticker. Sounds like freedom of speech infringement to me, but I'm just an American. What do I know.
I truly think that if ever there was a time for a strong third party showing, that time is now. The current group of yahoos in Washington is really not much different than the Parliament of 1775.
Hmm...interesting, what happened with all of that?
If Bush was so bad as Volfanatic mentioned then why has Obama followed some of his policies such as bailouts, wars in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan in the future, war tribunals, and etc. I mean really . . . the things that people equate Bush as being evil on are the same policies that Obama is following except on torture or enhanced interrogation techniques(Gitmo) and even the other Democrats are confused now on what to do about the prisoners in Gitmo and agree there are some that should never be released. I actually laugh now when I hear Obama supporters rally on how amazing Obama is doing and how evil Bush was when really its all the same. The only difference is on moral issues like homosexuality(which Obama hasn't even touched) and abortion. I am just amazed at how much people get absorbed by political rhetoric and don't even bother with facts. When you start quoting SNL skits as facts then you really lose any credibility with your arguments.
I use to be called at work a bleeding heart liberal but this year since I didn't support Obama now I am called "conservative" or a Republican because so many people are too ignorant to argue real facts or have real opinions based on facts and just resort to the usual childish name calling and or start the blame game. I am sorry, Obama is president now and not Bush and needs to quit reminding everyone that it "isn't his fault" even though it is his job now to fix the problem. When you resort to playing the blame game, it usually means you lack the means to fix the problem and looking for excuses to mask your own failures.
I really wish a third party would rise up that was truly independent and that took the good from both conservative and liberal ideology and blended it together in a common sense approach but unfortunately that will never happen because so many people are blinded by hype and pop culture and the pretty pictures they see on televisions and in blogs. It is sad really and now see why some think Americans are so stupid.
Let's just talk about the budget and fiscal responsibility. The Obama Administration is adding a great deal more transparency to the budget and doing more to present a realistic financial picture over the long run than the previous administration ever attempted to do.
The previous administration did not include a full accounting of the costs for military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. The previous administration did not include the cost of patching the alternative minimum tax in the out-years.
The previous administration did not include any type of contingency funding for natural disasters and other emergencies beyond immediate needs. Finally, the previous administration anticipated an artificially low level of spending on Medicare by assuming politically unrealistic cuts in doctor payments.
Truly, once real accounting is done, President Obama is inheriting a tremendous budget gap. Even excluding the recently passed recovery package, the deficit for the current fiscal year is expected to be $1.3 trillion or 9.2% of gross domestic product. A recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office confirms this finding and also shows deficits under Bush's policies in the $1 trillion range for each of the next 10 years, totaling nearly $11 trillion over this time. While some of this gap is due to the recession (which has depressed revenues and placed additional demands on spending), it is plain for all to see that the policies followed over the last 8 yeara -in particular tax changes that have eroded federal revenues and additional spending for military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan-have been the root cause of this imbalance.
Simply put, President Obama has inherited a county at war, a country in deep recession and a country that has lost respectability throughout the world.
He has quite a full plate, and I'm sure that he will make mistakes along the way. He has only been on the job for four months.
A third party would be a great thing. However, it isn't likely to happen any time soon. I, like you jaxspike, would love to see a third party emerge combining both conservative and liberal ideology. I like to believe that I am moderate on fiscal policy and somewhat left on social policy (abortion, gay rights, prayer, etc.). I think somewhere there is a balance.
As for the Republican Party, they have moved so far to the right that they have found themselves in complete disarray. The Democrats, on the other hand, do have a moderate to conservative element (i.e. the Blue Dog Democrats), so they at least appear to be a "big tent" party.
I don't feel I'm blinded by any rhetoric or pop culture...I look for results over the long haul. I don't want to evaluate the current administration until the policies and programs that are implemented have time to produce results either good or bad.
The only issue with waiting to see the results of the current policies is that in general, except with policies that take affect immediately, it takes three to four years to evaluate there full impact of the economy, or on the societal impact. As Thom has stated, most economist have determined the impact of the budget as being far reaching, as far as 2018 and beyond. Obama promised no increased taxes on the poor. Yet he and congress have increased the tax on tobacco, and now sugar. Both of which will increase the tax burden of the poor exponentially. These are not the actions of middle to conservative Democratic party. This is leaning about as far to the left as possible. As for the Republican Party, it is because of their moderate to liberal actions that have lost them their base supporters.
Thats how we got in the mess with Bush, by sitting back and waiting to see the outcome. We need to be vigilante and hold our leaders accountable, NOW. Not waiting until they have completly screwed us (like we have done with Bush) and then trying to take action, it will be too late. I have to agree with Thom, its sure starting to look like 1775....
I have to agree with Thom, its sure starting to look like 1775....
-- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, May 25, 2009, at 9:41 AM
Except the fact that our economy has become far more globalized and far reaching than our founding fathers would have ever dreamed, and our population has increased some 200%. Anyone find it ironic that our "founding fathers" somehow appointed themselves to their positions, yet some believe Democracy really existed then?
Our founding fathers were human, just as fallible as those we elect today.
True leaders will always "appoint" themselves for positions of leadership. The means just vary. The problem is not usually as much with the leaders as with the followers who forget or ignore the fallibilities of those who lead.
Except the fact that our economy has become far more globalized and far reaching than our founding fathers would have ever dreamed, and our population has increased some 200%. -- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, May 25, 2009, at 1:08 PM
What difference does that make? We can still trade globally and have more population, and still not be under tyranny by our own elected officials. Which like Jimmy Buffet says "Its our own dang fault"
Someone once challenged me to pay attention to everything I do during the day, from the time I open my eyes till I lay down to sleep, and try to find something that the govt does not control in some way. Its very interesting (or scary) if you try it. Try that and see if you still think were free. Remember, just because we are the most free nation in the world does not mean we are free.
We aren't really the most free nation in the world... not exactly sure why you would even think that. We are certainly the richest, but not the "most free". And yes Devan, I suppose every dictator, tyrant and communist government in the world would agree that true leaders appoint themselves.
"Anyone find it ironic that our "founding fathers" somehow appointed themselves to their positions, yet some believe Democracy really existed then?"
To which positions did they appoint themselves?
"Anyone find it ironic that our "founding fathers" somehow appointed themselves to their positions, yet some believe Democracy really existed then?"
To which positions did they appoint themselves?
Odd...I only posted that once...hmm
Don't take everything literally darrick-04. When I said "appoint" I meant that leaders use their talents to position themselves so that attaining the goals and positions they seek are nearly inevitable. Force is not the only thing that gets, or keeps, tyrants and dictators in power. The leadership element has to be there also. An election rarely is the defining event that gets a president in office. Its the maneuvering and manipulating that sets up the outcome. I would have given odds that Obama would be president one day right after I heard him speak at the 2004 DNC.
So, which are the "most free" nations in the world.
Google was created for your inquiries such as yours :)
Taxes on the poor are liberal, docudrama? Are you kidding me? The Democrats have always tried to distribute taxation such that the citizens with the highest incomes pay a greater share of taxes. Do you realize that from Franklin Roosevelt's administration up to the Kennedy administration, the top marginal tax rate was 90%+? The last fiscal year of the Kennedy administration lowered the rate to 70% and now the top rate is 35%.
Taxes on sugar and tobacco disproportionately affect lower wage earners since they are the greatest consumers of these products particularly tobacco. Liberals have always maintained that citizens from lower tax brackets should shoulder less of a tax burden than citizens in higher income brackets. Therefore, this tax bucks this trend making it more of a conservative position.
It may be that the taxes on these items relate to the health issues associated with them. Obviously, tobacco causes a number of problems such as cancer and heart disease which burden the health care system in this country. Sugar, it can be argued, also causes substantial health problems such as obesity which leads to other problems like diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. This tax may be a way of discouraging the use or overuse of these products, and, at the same time, providing money for treatment for the diseases and conditions associated with their use. Just a thought.
My point is that this administration ran on the premise that it would relieve the tax burden on the middle and lower income families. To which I say is bunk. Yes the income tax was lowered on this demographic, thank you Mr. Obama for my extra fifteen dollars that I get to keep every two weeks, however the residual taxation has increased across the board. This is totally due to the controlling party in the congress and the senate. The tax on carbon fuels that have been levied on the corporations that produce oil products and plastics is being passed on to consumers, in every tax bracket. The Tobacco tax, the proposed tax on sugar. All of these affect people in all income brackets. And Obama continues to pat himself on the back for lowering the tax burden on the poor. When in fact, the increased price on goods, has offset that relief by a great deal. Obama has an extreme liberal agenda that is not going to be supported by the top 1% of income earners of this country; it is only a matter of time before everyone will feel the impact of his vision for America. Change is truly coming.
Google was created for your inquiries such as yours :)
-- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, May 25, 2009, at 9:39 PM
A quick look at Google and I find a list of the most "economically free" nations. Is that the measure you are referring to? Is that the only significant measure.
The List is: "The Top 5 are in order, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand.
The United States, in 6th place, dropped 0.3% in the last year.
Ironically, Canada moved up precisely 0.3%.
Note - The US elected Democrats to control the Congress in 2006, while Canadians opted for the Conservative government of John Harper."
Does that mean we could be more free is we had a more conservative government?
"tobacco causes a number of problems such as cancer and heart disease which burden the health care system in this country."
the ugly little secret, that nobody wants you to know; tobacco users cost the health care system the least over a lifetime (by a good margin) because they die earlier. nearly everyone goes thru costly health problems down the stretch, whether they smoke or not.
tobacco taxes might be justified with fallacious references to the economic cost, but their real motivation is the desire to control our behavior.
"Obama has an extreme liberal agenda that is not going to be supported by the top 1% of income earners of this country"
well, then, i guess we need to throw out this democracy nonsense, and let the top 1% appoint a president that will serve their needs.
"Note - The US elected Democrats to control the Congress in 2006, while Canadians opted for the Conservative government of John Harper. Does that mean we could be more free is we had a more conservative government?"
there is no equating the canadian definition of a conservative government with ours. what calls itself conservative in the US today is anything but conservative. however, if we had a truly conservative government, we would be more free.
Lazarus . . you are actually right about tobacco users. The same can be said for obese people and other lifestyle habits that people claim burden the healthcare system. Actually, people who live longer are the ones who actually burden the healthcare system and have more money spent on them due to their longer existence and need for care over a longer period of time that those who life expectancy is shorter due to lifestyle habits.
I would just like for the elected officials to stand by their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That's it. There are so many issues that the federal government gets into that there is no need (or right) for them to do so. The states just let the federal government run all over their rights because they're afraid they might not get the "morsel" that their representatives tell them they're entitled to. I REALLY hate that word...entitled.
Tobacco users and obese citizens do cause an undue burden on the health care system even though they may not live longer than others. Not everyone who uses tobacco dies young. They may develop chronic, long-term respiratory and heart problems that are expensive over a period of time. Obesity leads to high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes and other complications that may not be immediately fatal but require an expensive long term regimen of medicine and other health care expenses.
People who live longer due to "clean living" don't generally need extended periods of hospital stays, medicine, etc. until they are well into their twilight years.
"smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.
Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents."
viscusi's study (not funded by tobacco industry) was published in several peer reviewed journals.
"A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people. The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer."
"Willard Manning, a professor of health economics and policy at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy Studies, was lead author on a paper published two decades ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that, taking into account tobacco taxes in effect at the time, smokers were not a financial burden to society. 'We were actually quite surprised by the finding because we were pretty sure that smokers were getting cross-subsidized by everybody else,' said Manning, who suspects the findings would be similar today. 'But it was only when we put all the pieces together that we found it was pretty much a wash.'"
want to hear more? the various sturgeon generals have long been aware of the fact that smokers cost society less than non smokers, and they have generally avoided broaching the topic: "The goal of the U.S. health care system is 'prolonging disability-free life,' states the 2004 Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of smoking. 'Thus any negative economic impacts from gains in longevity with smoking reduction should not be emphasized in public health decisions.'"
the truth is the truth. whether we want to hear it or not.
devan,
Isn't Hong Kong and Singapore, Cities?
Volfanatic . . . you provided no facts to your "theories" while facts have been provided for what I stated. Sure there are special cases like you mention but in general, those individuals tend to be less of a burden on the healthcare system than those who practice a healthier lifestyle over the course of a lifetime.
I believe those that can not afford health care are more of a burden on the system, now days. Not necessarily "just" those in bad health. Actually the majority of them if not all that are in bad health would probably be on govt. assisted health care, whether through medicaid or medicare.
As someone in the frontline of medicine(hospital care), I tend to see more sick folks than I do healthy ones. I would love to see a cure for all the disease processes that I see, which include diabetes, heart disease, lung diseases, but in a way they provide my co-workers and me job insurance. I have taken care of many people in their 50's & 60's who have cost healthcare more than those in their 90's. I have not keep statistics, but folks in their 90's tend to live that long because they have lived a healthier lifestyle than their younger counterparts. Healthcare cost come from the sickest and not the healthiest, and yes smokers and obese do cost the system more money. I am not sure of the total answer, although I do not believe government run healthcare is the answer. We do need a safety net for people that legitimately can not afford health care, but also decrease abuse in the system. We also need to encourage folks (myself included) to live healthier lifestyles, but we don't need to legislate it.
"I have taken care of many people in their 50's & 60's who have cost healthcare more than those in their 90's...and yes smokers and obese do cost the system more money."
interesting. you work in healthcare, and present us the solid proof of anecdotal evidence and gut feeling to contradict peer reviewed studies?
out of curiosity, how many of the treatments your patients receive are based on anecdotal evidence & gut feeling, and how many on peer reviewed studies?
I would have to say "Betty Jean Jo" down the street with her 10 kids on TnCare cost the system a lot more than smokers. How much is illegals and immigrants costing the system? I am sure that is much more than what smokers cost the system. According to the Surgeon General smokers live about 10 years less than the norm. A smoker works most of his life and has his own health insurance ..dies at a early age exactly what has he cost the system?
Here's just a small taste of what OUR hospitals do for us:
The family of a woman who died on a hospital floor, struggling to get up while staffers ignored her.But the family of Esmin Green, whose death was recorded on a hospital security video, still is awaiting a full investigation into what happened at the Kings County Hospital Center in Brooklyn, family lawyer Sanford Rubenstein said Wednesday.
"What remains most important to this family is the criminal culpability for those responsible for what happened and those who attempted to cover it up," Rubenstein said.
Green, a 49-year-old psychiatric patient, had been in a waiting room at the city-owned hospital for nearly 24 hours when she collapsed on June 19, 2008. Neither fellow patients nor the hospital's staff moved to help her, even as she thrashed her legs on the floor and tried to get up. Two security guards and a member of the hospital's medical staff can be seen on the video stopping to look at her briefly before walking away.
Green stopped moving after about 30 minutes. She was on the floor for an hour before a nurse checked her pulse. The medical examiner said she suffered from blood clots.
Six hospital employees lost their jobs over the incident, and the video prompted national outrage when it became public soon after.
___________________________
And we think Universal Health Care will be so bad. I am not sure how it could possibly be any worse we now have health care professionals who are only looking for the money and insurance companies telling the hospitals and doctors what they can and can not do to help the patient. When my private insurance company tells my doctor when I need to leave the hospital we have some serious problems with health care. When doctors and nurses start doing what the insurance company tells them to do instead of what is best for the patient we have another serious problem in the health care system..
And here all this time I thought because I paid outrageous premiums, the insurance company worked for me, Guess I was dead wrong!! Whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath that doctors took? Whatever happened to helping the patient first and worrying about the money second? Everything in life these dayz revolves around How much can I make on this or what's in this for me...I am sick of all the crap. I realize doctors and hospitals have to make a profit but try and be reasonable here...I do not believe for one minute that a 10 minute test cost $2000.00. For what it cost to stay in the hospital for 1 week and eat their crappy food I could go to an all inclusive resort and stay for 1 week cheaper and would probably feel better than I did when I left the hospital!!
Lazarus,
From a personal experience, I would say lots of tests occur based on "gut instinct" and "we'd better do this test just in case" (in case of a law suit). I had surgery last fall and after surgery due to a one time low oxygen reading, the MD's ordered a very expensive test called a V-Q scan. Let's add in that I was barely 24 hours out of a major surgery, not moving much and not actually taking deep breaths, and not on any oxygen. The test ordered was to rule out a pulmonary embolism (a blood clot in the lungs). At the time of the low oxygen level reading what symptoms of a blood clot in my lungs was I have - zero, none. I was sitting in a chair watching tv and napping, I was also on a morphine PCA pump which I was using as often as I could. Results of the test - no blood clot - just needed to be taking deep breaths and placed back on some low level oxygen for a while longer. The radiology cost alone was $155.00, total hospital bill $29,000. Something I had decided before any tests were even ordered.
Granted, what I provided in my earlier comments was anecdotal and not scientific evidence, but based on 20 years experience in healthcare, I much prefer an MD that actually examines a patient and orders test based on experience (gut instinct) then orders everything under the sun "just in case." We have progessed a long ways once we have an actual diagnoses when it comes to treatment, such as heart disease, then all the test we run to rule out stuff.
Diana,
I would agree with you that TNCare pts. overall cost the system more money than those that pay for their insurance. I would guess that you and I think about going to the MD or questioning costs before we have test run. I was talking with a Rad. tech who runs MRI's (another expensive test), who said most of the patients who had test were on tenncare, and much of the time didn't even show up to have the test completed. I asked her the reason why and she said "They said they just forgot". What happened the Esmin Green was absolutely wrong and her death possibly could have been prevented if treated sooner. She was having symtoms of a medical condition which warrented further testing and treatment. Could her death have been prevented with proper treatment, unknown, she wasn't given the chance to find out. Compare that to my hospital experience. I had a test done with out having any symptoms, she was having symptoms and totally ignored. This was a government run hospital, which is why I am against government healthcare. I am greatly concerned this would occur more often.
We do need reform in our healthcare system. We do need to be concerned about the patient first and cost second. We also need to add in personal responsibility back into the healthcare system. I don't have all the answers, but do agree that I would love a week at an exclusive resort and would probably feel better than I did after my 5 day expensive stay in the hospital.
Sharon I understand fully why you defend the health care industry, you work inside. I am not saying all nurses nor all doctors are money hungry nor am I saying they do not care about their patients but from experience I can honestly say Bedford County Hospital was much better run than Heritage ever dreamed to be. My family and I have spent many hours sitting with Mom on the second floor of Heritage Hospital as well as the old Bedford County Hospital and could name pretty much every nurse and tech who work there and could call by name which ones actually cared for the patients and which ones cared less. (But I am not going to do that) My mother is in and out of the hospital continuously with COPD and congestive heart failure. One weekend we took her to the ER at Heritage there was no one waiting in the ER when we arrived and there was only one other room occupied. We were there over 4 hours with a 84 year old heart patient before we ever saw a doctor. Which when he finally decided to grace us with his presence he decided Mom had Bronchitis and gave her some cough medicine evidently without even looking at the big red tag on her arm that plainly said Codeine Allergies because he gave her TUSSIONEX SUSPENSION. Well we not being Doctors assumed they knew she had allergies to codeine (thus the allergy tag on her arm) so we gave her what was prescribed and she was to the point of being comatose all day Saturday and most of the day on Sunday on one teaspoon. We decided to search this medicine and what we found was TUSSIONEX SUSPENSION has hydrocodone in it and if you are allergic to codeine you are not suppose to take it not to mention it is never suppose to be given to the elderly or anyone in a weakened condition (Mom Is both). So we sat in the ER for over 4 hours for this "doctor" to give us a medicine she is allergic to and should have never had to begin with. I could go on and on about the things that have gone on and happened at Heritage, most was just being negligent and sloppy. Rushing in and out without thinking leads to problems not only for the patients but in the end for the hospital as well.
Let me be clear about one thing here though, the DR was the ER Dr not Mom's regular doctor. Mom's doctor is probably one of Shelbyville's finest doctors. She is understanding and compassionate. And we all appreciate everything she has done for Mom all these years. Shelbyville needs more doctors like her.
So maybe Bedford County Hospital was old and falling apart...maybe they were county run..but at least our experiences have been much better there than at Heritage.
Diana,
I am not surprised by the amount of medical personel(MD's & nurses) that are unaware of what is actually in medications. Tussinex is liquiod hydrocodone (commonly known as lortab) and needs to be dispeased carefully to those with a codiene allergy. I can't take codiene but can take Tussinex (in small doses). I had a similar experience with my mom, trying to get her an appropiate pain med. She is not suppose to take acetaminophen, but the MD kept trying to give her percocet or something with tylenol, which I had to keep reminding him what was in the medication.
I am not trying to defend the medical industry. I am well aware of the changes that need and should take place. I enjoy patient care (most of the time) and try to place pt. needs above what else is required of my job, usually charting. Become a sqeeky wheel where your mother is concerned, one recomendation is if she is in the ER insist on the MD contacting your mom's MD for further recommendations and treatment.
I attempted a spelling correction, but my computer would not let me. Liquiod = Liquid.
Sharon22,
We will let it slide.... this time.
Now the Obama administration is talking about a Value Added Tax to pay for HIS health care which will be a 10 to 13% federal sales tax on everyone. On everything we purchase. More taxes on the poor. The hits just keep coming.
Thanks EM.
Docudrama,
Is this the same type of tax that I keep reading about that they have in England and other European countries to help pay for health care?
Yea but how much will you save in Health Insurance cost? How much will you save in prescription cost? How much will you save in co-pays? How much will it save the system in people who have no health care what-so-ever?
I'd prefer my taxes fund treatments for those who can not afford them... rather than blowing up countries with billion dollar bombs. The irony of it all, is that the so-called "pro-life" party is the same party that protests government spending on health care, but has no qualms with money for war.
I too would prefer my taxes be spent on health care than I would war and I am sure most people, even the Republicans would say the same thing. The problem with that statement is Universal Health Care is not going to stop wars.
The point is... stop starting wars that have no merit on "national security" and spend that on health care.
fanatic (might as well just drop the nascar part) - without the DEMOCRATS in Congress voting for those actions (which they DID), they could not have happened. You might want to talk to your people about that. I bet they'll stop voting for things that you don't approve of.
Thom,
Democrats weren't controlling congress when we went to war.
The Democrats who were in Congress voted for the war, and there has been several years now of a Democrat controlled congress that could have voted to stop funding the war at any time.
A few quotes for your reading enjoyment, in case memories have grown short.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
I have found it sort of amusing that Obama has become everything the internet rumors always said he was and now out of Obama's own mouth he speaks of his Muslim ties that he denied just a short year ago.
From Obama's own mouth he says:
Obama sought common ground with Muslims on Thursday by tracing personal links to Islam throughout his life as he laid out his vision for a strengthened relationship between America and followers of that faith.
"I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims," Obama said.
"As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk," he continued. "As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith. As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam ... I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story."
He also referred to himself by his full name -- Barack Hussein Obama -- and said he's "known Islam on three continents," experiences he said guide his convictions for a renewed relationship between Americans and Muslims.
And, he quoted from the Quran and issued a greeting of peace heard in Muslim communities in the United States, saying "assalaamu alaykum."
____
The problem I see from this is not the fact he was of Muslim religion it is the fact he lied about it to the American people in order to get elected.
"Democrats weren't controlling congress when we went to war."
EM - I don't see anywhere in my post that suggested they were. I simply stated that they VOTED FOR it, rather than against.
Based on cherry picked "intelligence" that we ALL know now, were complete lies.
Based on cherry picked "intelligence" that we ALL know now, were complete lies.
-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Thu, Jun 4, 2009, at 9:05 PM
Lies that obviously started well before Bush took office
Really? Which administration planned and orchestrated the war in Iraq? Which president gave a speech to the nation about Saddam being linked to Al Qaeda and about Saddam importing uranium tubes from South Africa?? The only people responsible for the Iraq war are those who knew there was no link involving Saddam to 9/11, but they used carefully selected words and debunked "intelligence" to sell lies to the American people. People, who had fully supported the war, just like the Democrats who voted for it. Then, once the truth was told, the people and most Congressmen reversed their positions.
Most Democrats SAY they have reversed their positions, but even though they have had several years now, lip service is as far as they have gone.
The Iraq war was started by Bush Sr. and a large coalition of nations. The war was technically still on, but was under a conditional cease fire.
As far as Saddam having uranium, you may have missed the 500 tons of it that we shipped out of Iraq to a Canadian company for use in power plants.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.ur...
Ok... so uranium, for use in power plants.. poses what threat to the United States? None. So every country that seeks to find alternative sources of energy are now validated as terrorists? Pathetic.
Ironic that the Iraq War began with one Bush... and suddenly began all over again with another.
The problem with the W's version is that instead of saying he wanted to liberate the Iraqi people from a dictator he had this nation believe that dictator was out to destroy America, and to possess WMD's, that apparently only WE are allowed to obtain.
Nice try at a backpedal. Yellow cake uranuim can be used for a WMD, called a dirty bomb.
All it would have taken would be for him to have given some to a terrorist.
Yes there is some difference between Saddam possessing them and us. Saddam has used WMDs on innocent people in the past.
fanatic - Actually, I can tell that you are unable to do research on your own, we're not the only ones that have nukes.
There are at least eight countries that currently maintain nuclear weapons.
United States
Russia
UK
France
China
India
Pakistan
North Korea
Israel has never confirmed, or denied, that they have a nuclear weapon although it is widely accepted that they have developed and maintain a nuclear arsenal.
Thom,
"WE" is an all encompassing term that includes nations in which WE either approve of having nuclear weapons, or that we monitor more closely than is known.
fanatic,
I apologize for not assuming that your "WE" was intended to mean every single country that already has nuclear weapons. What was I thinking? When I use the term WE speaking of a global issue, I generally mean WE AMERICANS, not WE (ambiguous group of nations that already have nuclear weapons). But thanks for clarifying this non-issue of a misunderstanding.
Also, you might want to look-up the definition of the word "ironic" since it is not irony at all that President George W. Bush continued the war that was started during his father's term. Especially considering that Saddam Hussein continued to break the conditions of the cease fire throughout President Clinton's terms and nothing was done about it.
Also, WE (the United States...figured I would clarify that for you) monitor EVERY country more closely than is known. That's why they call it CLANDESTINE SERVICE.
Wow, it took you three paragraphs to explain something that I already knew. How does it feel to waste precious time?
The entire point about the war, is NOT that it wasn't necessary, it is that we WERE LIED TO!!!!!!! Rather than using ANY of the things you mentioned as reason for invading Iraq, instead there was this evil dictator who plotted with Osama bin Laden to orchestrate 9/11. Saddam and Osama were not friends are allies in any way shape or form so to boldface lie about nearly every detail is wrong. Presidents can be nearly impeached for an alleged sexual affair, yet they can orchestrate a war in which 4,000 U.S. soldier and half a million innocent Iraqi citizens die, and impeachment is never even considered. Yeah, WE (there goes that all encompassing term) should so be the only one's allowed to possess nuclear weapons since none of the above mentioned countries have ever made a colossal mistake.
fanatic,
You were raised under power lines, weren't you?
And Bill Clinton WAS impeached (you might want to check out that definition as well) on four charges:
Two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of abuse of power. His ADMITTED (not alleged) sexual conduct wasn't one of the charges.
So please stop wasting my time by causing me to correct your political blather so that others aren't led astray by your ignorance on so many matters.
Only this time it took three sentences rather than three paragraphs to tell me what I already knew. Vast improvement :)
fanatic,
Thanks. At least this answers my question about the power lines over your house.
If you "already knew" these things, then you're intentionally using false information in your posts. We now know where you stand.
Wow, you suddenly care about false information. You should have been so caring when your president stood there and lied to the American people for hours on end. It didn't seem to matter to you that people intentionally used false information, so I took it upon myself to see how you really felt about it.
I am glad to see that Pres. Obama, and the democrats have brought all the soldiers home that the evil republicans sent over there. I sure am glad the wars are over. LOL.
Hmmm... Was there a time frame? Oh wait, it was people like YOU who said we shouldn't have one. And the draw down in Iraq will begin soon.
It will begin soon? Along with the accountability in government and the tax cuts for 95% of us..yeah ok.
Accountability in government... That has been missing since 2001, with absolutely no checks and balances. As for the tax cuts, those same 95% saw their real wages stagnate or decline for 8 consecutive years, beginning with the last "president". Funny to me that while the rich get richer at the expense of the markets, you don't care, but if the government imposes a tax, that has the same effect, you get bent out of shape. At the end of the day, everyone has about the same money, it's just a different organization taking it...
Spare the drama.
If I don't buy something from Microsoft this year, Bill Gates won't send a squad of guys with masks and machine guns to arrest me, if I don't pay taxes, Obama (or his employees) will.
See the difference? Markets give me a choice, government doesn't.
If you really want to compare ANY other president's spending to Obama's you might want to check the facts first.
This video explains it well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwD...
quietmike
They were talking about this guy that does these videos on the news the other night. I liked the one he did about the jobs, using the pennies.
Mike,
Your fine founding fathers set up the tax system, they just left out the agency to enforce it.
The federal income tax was first enacted in 1862 to support the Union's Civil War effort. It was eliminated in 1872, revived in 1894, then declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court the following year. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.
So, no, the founding fathers didn't have much to do with it
The Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act would assist local governments and officers in removing criminal illegal aliens. The CLEAR Act, HR 2406, introduced by Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), affirms that state and local law enforcement personnel have the inherent authority to assist in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.
The bill would also reimburse states and localities for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and cut off certain federal funds to states that have laws or policies prohibiting such law enforcement assistance.
We must not allow our country's vast interior to become a free zone for aliens who slip past our borders. By allowing the thousands of local law enforcement officers to apprehend criminal aliens they encounter during the routine performance of their jobs, this legislation will greatly enhance our security
So, no, the founding fathers didn't have much to do with it
-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Jun 11, 2009, at 6:39 PM
The Federal Income Tax wasn't and isn't the only tax we pay.
fanatic - Your posts are rather taxing...does that count?
nascarfanatic
Since you seem to throw out general statements and then crawfish when you are contradicted by saying that isn't what you mean, why don't you specifically point out what tax and what missing tax enforcement agency you are referring to?
Why don't you specifically point out where I said any of the alleged things? Thom, your picture is taxing, does that count?
Good grief nascar, it's just a couple posts back, the tax reference didn't jog your memory?
Anyway here it is:
Mike,
Your fine founding fathers set up the tax system, they just left out the agency to enforce it.
-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Thu, Jun 11, 2009, at 8:36 AM
When I posted of the origins of the income tax, which is where the majority of federal money comes from, since we were talking about federal spending, you then posted:
The Federal Income Tax wasn't and isn't the only tax we pay.
-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Thu, Jun 11, 2009, at 10:07 PM
So I asked you what specific tax and absent enforcement agency you were referring to in your original post.
Oh good grief more silliness over here.
I could point to a verse in Romans about obeying your government and paying your taxes, because those in government were put there for a reason.. but then, you'd say show me the verse, and I'd simply tell you to look it up yourself :)
I remember another few verses where Israelites were led out of Egypt by a servant of GOD to escape a government that required too much from them.
GOD asks for 10% of our proceeds, the government asks for FAR more.
Really... I thought your stance on things were that Obama required nothing of anyone, yet he'd give them everything? So which is it? And you accuse others of contradicting themselves. Also the last time I checked, God lives in heaven, where the streets are paved in gold, he doesn't need 10% of our money :) After all, we can't take it with us, which means he ain't getting it, it only fills the coffers of the religious cults.
Mike,
But the real truth of the matter is we can both point out scripture with contradicting messages...The Bible should have a patent on that.
So take whichever you wish to really believe in and stick with it, because you can't pick and choose which to believe yesterday and which you believe today.
Really... I thought your stance on things were that Obama required nothing of anyone, yet he'd give them everything?
-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Fri, Jun 12, 2009, at 11:14 PM
I don't believe I ever said this. Obama pretty much claimed this during his campaign...too bad so many in our country were foolish enough to swallow it. I'm not some starry-eyed youngster who still believes that type of political garbage.
As for GOD not needing our money...of course that is true. GOD knows that the giver receives the biggest gift of all.
Actually, I believe he called people to service, to once again volunteer their time, efforts, and money into this country.. something that was never encouraged by national politicians previously.
I do remember you party criticizing him for being a "community organizer" which doesn't indicate to me that he expects nothing of people, in fact just the opposite. More contradictions? Awesome.
That crystal ball again. How do you know what "my party" is? You know what they say about assumptions.
As for calling folks to service...He plans to greatly expand Americorp, though I fail to see how getting paid for your effort can be called volunteer work. As for volunteering effort and money, Obama will be raising taxes on those who already pay the lions share, forcing people to turn over their money, and by proxy their time to the government, so that cannot be called voluntary either.
Also, I would like for you to point out any contradictions I have made.
JLE - If he was so charitable, why did they only contribute 3.85% of their income to charity from 2000 - 2006? And, I have to admit, that figure is misleading. The actual figures are:
2000 - 1%
2001 - .5%
2002 - .4%
2003 - 1.4%
2004 - 1.2%
2005 - 4.7%
2006 - 6.1%
Ok, let us look at these numbers. There was a bit of an increase in 2003. Did anything significant happen in 2003? Hmmm...he officially announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2003. That's probably just a coincidence though.
The year 2005 saw another large increase in his charitable giving, from 1.2% to 4.7%. Nothing significant happened that year, did it? Actually no, nothing significant happened that year, but on July 27th of 2004, Barack Obama gave his 17 minute speech at the Democratic National Convention. This speech, which admittedly I have neither heard nor read, was really the catalyst that launched his presidential campaign. People were talking so much about this state Senator from Illinois that, within a few months, people were considering his chances of being elected President. This gave him barely any time to increase his charitable giving for that year, so it's reflected on his next year's return. These numbers, by the way, include his tithing.
One would think that if he wants EVERYONE to be charitable to a point of sacrifice, then he would practice this. As it turns out, he is charitable with OTHER PEOPLE'S INCOME, but not his own.
So, like I said, he's JUST ANOTHER POLITICIAN.
Thom,
So are you saying this should be socialism where he is made to donate a certain percentage of his income? That's what happens when you live in a "democratic" society, you give what you want to charity :)
And to show the real story, line those percentages up with his income.
JLE,
Nice try twisting my point. But the point is that he wants everyone else to give, but he's unwilling to.
I couldn't give a rat's rump whether he is charitable or not as long as he doesn't expect ME to be more charitable than he's willing to be.
Also, we don't live in a democratic society.
Personally, I think I give up. We reap what we sew and 50% of us is always gonna disagree with the other 50% and our schools don't to any degree teach our history anymore and downplays religion and patriotism. I think nowadays, the only illegal act in the majority's eyes is getting caught. Our media glorifies immorality and our elected run for office only to better themselves. If I sound disgusted and discouraged, it's because I am. We do not deserve what we have but that's OK. We are losing it fast. I find it so hard to to believe such a great country has fallen so far in 70 years.
If you choose to see things in a negative light, then so be it... others will remind you of the progress made, the lives improved, and the science advanced. Others seem to look to the past with rose colored glasses, as our country was "started" over 200 years ago, only to be followed by a Civil War, slavery, and women having no rights... we have come a long way, you just have to look at the past with the same sadness that you do today, to understand just how far we have come.
Obama will battle Jimmy Carter for the worst president ever honor.
-- Posted by Chef Boy R.D. on Sat, May 23, 2009, at 6:46 PM
It's a toss up thus far, but he's hell-bent on earning that crown, and fast. What amazes me is the staunch following Obama continues to have...sort of like the poor, dumb sheep being led to their slaughter.
And to think, I thought no one could top Bush? It is amazing the damage that can occur in 1 or 2 presidential terms...I shudder to think how this one will end...I didn't vote for Bush or Obama, but yet I suffer the same fate.
Obama appears to be a nice, well adjusted and positive thinking man to me.
What everyone has to realize is that Obama like all the other presidents can only do what they are told to do by the rich bankers who own not only our country, but the whole world.
President F.D. Roosevelt had Congress pass his proclamations before he even became the President and the only president to serve more than his allowed term. All these proclamations were not drawn up by F. D. R., but by the Federal Reserve in order to control Americans with their Federal Reserve Notes redeemable by another Federal Reserve Note.
F.D.R. declared a banking holiday, took the Gold away from the American people, he amended the Trading with the Enemy Act of Oct 6, 1917 to give the President and Secretary of the Treasury power over Congress to act without its consent, even included the U.S. citizens as the enemy to the United States whenever this country was at war or in a state of emergency, then declared a state of emergency which has never been repealed.
Anyone who thinks a new President, before he is sworn in, could do all that is nuts. It was done by higher up individuals and not the president.
Presidents are people like you and I who are elected to take the blame for everything that has gone wrong for the people but right for the bankers like: Market crash or wall street drops, economy falls and cost of living goes up, and wars that are drug out to keep needing money from the Federal Reserve to support and keep the armies in place. All of these but millions of dollars in the pockets of the people holding the puppet strings on the Presidents.
Take a closer look at Obama in this video. Tell me if you think that is the way Obama is or if someone is pulling his strings.
http://www.youtube.com/v/eAaQNACwaLw
"Wow, you suddenly care about false information. You should have been so caring when your president stood there and lied to the American people for hours on end. It didn't seem to matter to you that people intentionally used false information, so I took it upon myself to see how you really felt about it.
-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 9:56 PM"
Get a clue! The lies are mounting for your new "Golden Boy" in Washington. Obama's beginning to look a little tarnished, someone might want to jet over there and polish him up.
Suddenly he has Muslim ties and ancestry...wait, didn't he deny that during campaigns? Oh, and the Anti-American preacher whose church Obama practically grew-up in, what about him? And let's not forget the government "yes they're funded/no they're not funded" abortions and illegals...I smell a Democ-RAT!
I wasn't old enough to vote for Jimmy Carter, I wasn't foolish enough to vote for Bush, and I certainly wasn't gullible enough to vote for Obama...but I have to suffer the consequences of their presidency nonetheless. God Bless America (wait, I can still say "God Bless" right, or did that get taken away like National Prayer Day?).
Seriously... you are overkill.