And considering the lack of choice and poor service for anyone but the wealthiest that is part of our current system, that's a chance I'm willing to take.

 

Funny. I don't consider myself wealthy.

Funny. I don't consider myself wealthy.

Then you've somehow gotten things for you a lot better than I have. Or than a lot of us have. Congrats. Now why should we not have that chance?

Then you've somehow gotten things for you a lot better than I have. Or than a lot of us have. Congrats. Now why should we not have that chance?

Really? I bet most people here are happy with what they have. But you're not. So...

 

I may not have a lot of things, but I'm not willing to destroy my country for 5 million people that things can be fixed another way if they chose to.

 

Really? I bet most people here are happy with what they have. But you're not. So...

 

I may not have a lot of things, but I'm not willing to destroy my country for 5 million people that things can be fixed another way if they chose to.

So, I'm in a very, very large minority.

The survey from Belden Russonello & Stewart found that 72 percent of adults "are worried that if someone in their family becomes seriously ill their health insurance might not cover enough of their medical bills," and that somewhat smaller majorities worry that other crises or changes could cost them their health insurance.

 

A full 46 percent say they worry "very much" about losing health coverage if they lose or change jobs.

So, I'm in a very, very large minority.

That's what the propoganda being distributed by the Obama administration will get you.

 

Most people are covered by a medical plan when they are employed - unless part time. But of course, no one can get jobs right now, unless it's in government. Oh wait a minute...

 

People worry because they are told to worry about it. I will also argue that there's a HUGE bias on the questioning here. Note the headline of the study. It leads to BS answers.

 

What are YOU WORRIED ABOUT YOUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM? What a study. I better say something that worries me.

 

On top of that, I'm worried that the system won't pay for my health care when I'm older. Because it won't, the path we're headed down. Better add myself to the worried people. Or I'll just go die. That will make it easier, I think.

 

Edited September 7, 200916 yr by kapkomet

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/57493-s...iling-above-12t

 

Do as I say not as I do.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/57493-s...iling-above-12t

 

Do as I say not as I do.

There needs to be a balanced budget amendment to the constitution.

There needs to be a balanced budget amendment to the constitution.

Terrible idea. A balanced budget amendment would have pushed this country flat-out in to a depression this year.

Terrible idea. A balanced budget amendment would have pushed this country flat-out in to a depression this year.

I am not say it would be implemented over night. It would be phased in over time.

I am not say it would be implemented over night. It would be phased in over time.

 

Lightning is going to strike me, but I agree with Balta. There are times where, as a country, we need to run a deficit. We just need to clean up our act when times are good and shrink the government accordingly.

Lightning is going to strike me, but I agree with Balta. There are times where, as a country, we need to run a deficit. We just need to clean up our act when times are good and shrink the government accordingly.

Zap. Agreed. We'll probably disagree about the circumstances and I wouldn't include the "Shrink the government accordingly" line, but on principle, yeah.

Zap. Agreed. We'll probably disagree about the circumstances and I wouldn't include the "Shrink the government accordingly" line, but on principle, yeah.

 

War, disaster, and recession are my three big circumstances

War, disaster, and recession are my three big circumstances

Pretty much hard to disagree there, that's when I'd say you want the feds running a deficit.

Pretty much hard to disagree there, that's when I'd say you want the feds running a deficit.

 

Outside of that, we should be running a zero sum game at the federal level.

Outside of that, we should be running a zero sum game at the federal level.

Depends on what you mean by "Zero sum".

Lightning is going to strike me, but I agree with Balta. There are times where, as a country, we need to run a deficit. We just need to clean up our act when times are good and shrink the government accordingly.

War, disaster, and recession are my three big circumstances

I think a lot, if not all, of the versions of the Balanced Budget amendment included clauses that allow congress or the president to run a deficit... at least I know a clause about war as been present.

Edited September 8, 200916 yr by Athomeboy_2000

It all depends on how far on the Ron Paul spectrum you are. There are many who believe that it should never happen.

There needs to be a balanced budget amendment to the constitution.

I once felt that way too (with war-time or other special exemptions of course, not just flat), but changed my mind (flip-flop!!!). Can't work.

 

Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), said "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students.

Can you point to me the political advertising part of the President's speech yesterday?

Can you point to me the political advertising part of the President's speech yesterday?

 

Can you show me the political advertising in the 1991 Bush speech which pretty much is similar to the one that Obama did yesterday.

 

Bush Speech 1991 to Kids

 

The president addressing children in school is a cool thing. I had no problem with Bush doing it in 1991, and I don't have a problem with it with Obama. I find the democratic outrage about questioning the speech humorous though due to the fact that they basically did the same thing back in 1991. Hell they even took things a step further.

 

The controversy over President Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.

 

Rep. William Ford, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, demanded the General Accounting Office investigate the speech as well as the cost of its production because he was convinced there was some illegality going on. The GAO came back and said it found nothing improper or illegal with the president's speech. Undetered by this information, the Democrats continued their potshots at Bush nonetheless and said the president's speech was nothing more than a "staged media event."

 

Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"

 

The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it "cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers' money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. -- while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters."

Edited September 9, 200916 yr by southsideirish71

I get it. Eye for an eye. You were outraged in 1991 that some Democrats criticized GHB so now you have to "get them back".

Granted I was 9 years old in 1991 but I don't remember anything near the scale of last week happening.

I get it. Eye for an eye. You were outraged in 1991 that some Democrats criticized GHB so now you have to "get them back".

 

Uh, it looks to me like he is pointing out hypocrites, much like you were trying to do in the Dem thread.

I get it. Eye for an eye. You were outraged in 1991 that some Democrats criticized GHB so now you have to "get them back".

 

I have no problem with Obama or Bush or any president addressing children on the merits of staying in school and doing good. I thought it is stupid for people today to get upset about it, as I did in 91 when people were bent out of shape with the same exact thing. I find it ironic that democrats are upset about the same exact outrage that they expressed themselves back in 1991. I am not outraged at either event. I find humor in the delicious irony though.

Edited September 9, 200916 yr by southsideirish71