Holy %@!%% to some degree; we agree. That's not something that occurs often. However, didn't Obama run on Change? Transparency? What happened there? He's every bit of partisan as Bush and that makes him worse because Bush never promised any of that.
I never said I loved this new law, or for that matter that I even really liked it except for a few items, but I will say this. As with almost every bill that has been passed into law since the early 1920's by our Congress they all have been earmarked by ridiculous amendments and "add-ons" that clearly helped no one but themselves or the group that lobbied for them in the first place. In other words you sometimes have to take the good with the bad. And the reason for that is that neither party will really work with the other, and neither one truly knows what the word "compromise" really means anymore.
LOL. Student loans are an unfortunate thing. Those I do not take issue with because clearly that is something that is now wholly owned by the government, but then again they are not a corporation or business I take issue or concern for except to say it's a good thing I didn't need one.
In regards to her collecting one of the above mentioned items it really depends; they live off of earned retirement that comes with medical so in reality. I'm not sure on the rules for collecting social security with that scenario but even if they did, they did pay into it. If any of us had the option, I for one wouldn't be contributing to Social Security, it would be going to my own savings or investment. Definitely not anything to do with the US government.
This bill is a joke and you know it, pretend otherwise and your mocking your own intelligence.
Ouch Rick, Although dated it is one of the most liberal infested blogs on the net. If it's not valid let me know. That would be more than 50% and let me alter my previous comment a bit about student loans; not only do they own all of the student loans now, if you'd like a student loan it will ONLY come from the US government now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/31/government-motors-us-will_n_209578.html
Mr. Kazinec if you believe for one moment that I don't know for a FACT that the person to whom we are both referring won't eventually use at least one of those three programs then you are sorely mistaken. And by doing so, like I've stated before and will state to my dying breath, it IS HYPOCRISY!!!!! Do not shout you do not want the government deciding health care when you clearly have no problem depending on it for a monthly check in the past, present, or future! By the way, I have several gripes about the law myself, but I will not chastise it entirely when it will do millions of people some good. And now I will take note with you concerning "Ownership". Ownership of shares of a company does NOT mean you make the decisions for that company unless it is more than 50%, and you know that. That argument is simply trash. You can try an argument like that with someone of low intelligence, but remember it is me you are messaging!!!
While our government is far from Chavez (Currently) in that they don't distribute the means of production and manufacturing they do however own premier shares (Ownership) in several MAJOR banking institutions, they own a majority of home mortgages, they own a majority of General Motors, and now thanks to a ###!!%# Health Care Bill they now own ALL of the @$#&$&@ student loans. Are you kidding me? How anyone with any intelligence can support this is beyond me. How do you feel about 16 thousand new IRS employees? How are they funded again? Oh that's right through tax payer funds. So let me get this straight, Unemployment continues to flirt with 10% and they're wanting to create so much new bureaucracy that it requires 16 thousand new tax agents?
And by the way, I know the person your reply is to and let me tell you that she doesn't collect Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security(Although she has paid into it and if the government hadn't been stealing from it for so many years it might be available). We want to be left the %@$! alone to live our lives. Charity is a beautiful thing when its the individual deciding who to give to; it's another thing entirely when it's the government taking form one class and giving to another. What's that called? Oh that's right, it's theft.
I can't say whether President Barack Obama will serve one term or two. That depends on whether the American public gives in to the ridiculous idea of the extreme right wing Republicans and Tea Partiers who keep crying "Socialism" as a means to hide behind their own party's failure to present any real solutions to our current problems. I too am looking forward to his last day in office, and God willing it will be January 20th, 2016. :-)
I can't say whether President Barack Obama will serve one term or two. That depends on whether the American public gives in to the ridiculous idea of the extreme right wing Republicans and Tea Partiers who keep crying "Socialism" as a means to hide behind their own party's failure to present any real solutions to our current problems. I too am looking forward to his last day in office, and God willing it will be January 20th, 2016. :-)
First of all let me start by saying that everyone harped on Bush because he was a deplorable U.S. President. I can't say whether he was more inept as an American President than Coolidge, but he's pretty close. As far as Barney Frank is concerned with the lending fiasco that catastrophically helped move us toward this recession, he was not alone. His "cronies" as you call them included several Republicans as well. Both sides can take blame for the awful mess we ended up in to date. Now I will take note with your definition of the word "socialism". I have no problem with the definition as it is correct. However, your implication that somehow any of it actually applies to our own government is nothing short of a stretch of the imagination. Americans can choose to own their own land, and it IS known as private property. To date I know of no company that distributes goods like Walmart, Target, McDonalds, or otherwise that are owned and controlled by their respective states. Do you? And as for part 3 of the definition we exist under a CURRENT government that is NOT distinguishable by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to the work they accomplish. The only part of this entire definition that remotely applies to any law that has been passed by Mr. Obama is the current Health Care reform. I find it extremely hypocritical though of people who want to gripe about a legislative health care reform, when those same people have no problem using Medicare, Medicaid, or cashing their monthly Social Security check. All three of these programs were legislatively passed into law (by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT). So if you truly want to prove to me that you despise "big government", then quit cashing those checks. Can you do that? Or do you still depend on them like millions of others? Quid Pro Quo, if you don't really like big government and truly wish to see Health Care reform overturned then send your next check back. Because to argue that you don't like this type of governed interference should mean that you wouldn't agree with it at any time. Anything less is nothing more than pure hypocrisy. And if you expect leaders to exemplify the best, then you should be willing to do the same.
This bill is a joke and you know it, pretend otherwise and your mocking your own intelligence.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/31/government-motors-us-will_n_209578.html
And by the way, I know the person your reply is to and let me tell you that she doesn't collect Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security(Although she has paid into it and if the government hadn't been stealing from it for so many years it might be available). We want to be left the %@$! alone to live our lives. Charity is a beautiful thing when its the individual deciding who to give to; it's another thing entirely when it's the government taking form one class and giving to another. What's that called? Oh that's right, it's theft.