I mean seriously, I got a bachelor of science degree in 2008 and couldn’t even get any job at all until August of 2010. The job I do have is doing hard work (lifting, pulling, emptying trash) at a thrift store where I get paid .50 an hour, which is considered a low wage. But in my case I am simply not worried about material things and I dont usually spend money on anything other than rent or other bills that need to be paid. I live in a mobile home with my dad and it is far from a lavish lifestyle, but I don’t consider myself deprived because I don’t always go out to eat or spend tons of money on material things. The truth is I am just not worried about things like that in general, and I am also not terribly worried about what kind of job I have or how much I get paid (even if I did go to college), I might WANT a better job, but I am HAPPY just as long as I am making enough to live decently. That being said, I just could never understand why it seemed like other people were upset because they were "not making enough money", yet they go out to eat and want to buy expensive material things which cost tons of money. It dawned on me that there are people like athletes who make several millions a year, when the truth is NO ONE needs that much money to survive, not even if they have a family. Who needs several million a year, even if they "earn" it? Do you not think I "earn" more than .50 an hour with the intense physically demanding work I do?
I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that republicans are the ones who want it so that people will make so much money when they don’t need anywhere near that much, yet they want to place the blame elsewhere when we are in a situation like the current one involving the government going bankrupt. Why can’t we just return to a time where people accepted and were paid a decent wage relative to their employment and were not worried about lavish living, but were happy just as long as they could live decently? Because the truth is this government could really save a lot of money were it not for individuals getting paid rediculous amounts of money as they so often do these days. These cuts do not even have to be that drastic, for example if a group of athletes, singers, athletes, e.t.c. is currently making million a year each, that could be reduced to million a year for each of them, or perhaps not even reduced by that much either. Even million a year is a TON of money and more than any family will ever need, yet this type of reduction when multipled by several people would create untold amounts of additional revenue that does not currently exist to improve the economy among other things.
I just really think that we should at least consider something like this, because it pisses me off that we are in this situation with the government going bankrupt when there are people being paid rediculous amounts of money. Why not just reduce their pay by a small amount, which will add up significantly, in lieu of wanting to cut necessary spending elsewhere such as with entitlement programs?

Technorati Tags: bachelor of science, bachelor of science degree, dad, decent wage, enough money, job, lavish lifestyle, lavish living, material things, mobile home, much money, republicans, thrift store, tons of money, trash, truth

Which side is this flip flopper on? An How is this RINO beating the crap out of all the other republicans in the polls

what is going on he hates detroit but than says it was his idea to bail them out when he criticized obama for doing it now he saying its his idea but his blog title says let them go bankrupt

I don’t get him he makes no sense hes a liar flip flopper just generally is a horrible person compared to obama

Technorati Tags: blog title, crap, flip flopper, horrible person, liar, polls, republicans, rino

Please read all of the following to understand my concern before responding.

Saying up front, I’m not a lefty or a righty. I want the best person for the job at whatever level in politics. So, I’ve been getting started on my research. While making dinner last night, I heard something disturbing on TV. The subject was about how Newt Gingrich went against his party and his quote about “right wing social engineering” or something like that. Then a picture of a Republican who was head of something, I didn’t catch it, followed by an audio of him saying “….Medicare as we know it has to change or it will go bankrupt by 2024.” Later, I went on the Internet for info on this issue and became acquainted with the terms “right” and “entitlement”, as they relate to these issues. “Entitlement” was used in the same context as welfare or a gift. Then I began to consider these facts:

1)My sister, who is retired and disabled, worked for over 30 years and paid into Medicare via mandatory FICA deductions
2)I worked for over 30 years and did the same
3)Neither my sister nor I were given a choice. We were forced to pay.
4)Just because the Republicans say Medicare will go bankrupt by 2024, does that make it so?

I then read that Republicans think that what my sister and I were forced by the government to pay into for over 30 years, with a promise that we’ll be covered after age 65, is NOW somehow the equivalent of us asking for welfare? They want to change it later so that my sister and I will get a “voucher” to go buy our own insurance from the insurance company of our choice, but we won’t be able to afford the difference between what the voucher allows us and what the insurance company will charge for the same coverage. Seems to me, we should be guaranteed the same or better coverage for no additional financial burden on us, since the government made us pay for 30 years without asking us if we want to or not.

On the other hand, I’m reading that the Democrats are saying no to Republicans on changing Medicare, saying to the people, “You have worked and paid into it, you deserve it, and you will continue to receive it.”

If the above is true, then label me what you want: liberal, lefty, whatever. I’m about fairness. In this issue, if the Republicans, or “conservatives”, were successful in this, then for me, the “conservatives” would be bullies, and the “liberals” would be their victims. The fox was allowed into the chicken coup by dropping regulations for Wall Street, corporations, and the banking industry. Greed ran rampant and unchecked, creating an economic crisis. The American people as a whole already bailed out banks and corporations. Now they want to rape Medicare, and senior citizens, to make them all richer. How low down and dirty is that? Do you think this is right or fair?
@John: Given what I wrote above then reading your "contribution", I was about to call you an @$$ Hole of the highest order. Then I realized you’re just jealous, bitter, and ignorant, and you deserve my pity.

Technorati Tags: democrat, fica deductions, financial burden, insurance, insurance company, job, lefty, medicare, newt gingrich, own insurance, republican, republicans, social engineering, voucher, welfare

Corporate Conservatives cause alll these citizens to lose Billions.

Barney Frank passed regulations to keep Fannie and Freddie in check, but it was too late. Barney Frank would have saved Fannie and Freddie if he were head of the Finance Committee before 2007.

The lesson to be learned: To save the economy, we need more Government regulations in businesses to protect corporations from losing their money like Fannie and Freddie lost.

Obama’s policies are the reason America is not going through a Depression. If Obama didn’t pass regulations, imagine how many other corporations would have gone bankrupt.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the perfect example of how evil capitalism can be.

That is why Barnie Frank wanted regulations and independent oversight to keep these organizations from making risky illogical sub-prime mortgage lendings to people not in a position to repay those loans.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had they followed the rules, they would have not given bonuses to their top executives in the years leading up to bankruptcy
At the time of these video hearings it was Late 2004 and the issue was not about regulating Fannie and Freddie, it was about how the Republicans were going about doing it with the goal of corrupting it so they got money out of it
These Democrats wouldn’t be this angry, something is twisted in these videos, you think they would lobby vigorously to protect a corporation???
I still hold the Conservatives more responsible because Wall Street was the driving force behind the magnitude of the loans.

OF COURSE ANY POOR PERSON would want an opportunity VS. NO opportunity to own a home. Clinton and the Democrats wanted a program to help poor people obtain loans with poorer credit scores, but with regulation over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This means they would be some other channel (perhaps a petition process) poor people denied loans could go through to make the case they can be trusted with a mortgage. However, it is not the homeowner’s responsiblity to assess the risk of Fannie Mae, that’s in Wall Street’s hands.
What Clinton wanted to lax up was the impact of clear cut credit score and income as a basis for judging who can and can’t get a loan. This doesn’t necessarily mean a poor person who is at risk of not paying back can’t get one. You’d just have to open the door to other means of risk measurement besides sheer income.

Technorati Tags: barney frank, barnie frank, billions, capitalism, conservatives, credit scores, driving force, fannie mae, fannie mae and freddie mac, finance committee, freddie mac, government regulations, independent oversight, magnitude, obama, poor person, reason america, republicans, sub prime mortgage, top executives

Man, conservatives sure do want everyone to buy into the notion that the only answer to Medicare is to not have it. They go on and on about how Medicare is going to go bankrupt. But what is never mentioned is the actual end of that sentence "…under current spending levels."

Let’s remember that there are two sides to that coin. One way to deal with rising costs is to drastically cut benefits. But that doesn’t reduce the existence of the need for those benefits, it simply transfers the costs to the individual, who is on Medicare because they cannot afford private insurance. As in our current system with those who are uninsured, if those individuals can’t pay those costs, they get passed on to everyone else in the form of increased premiums and bloated medical charges (nothing like paying for a box of tissue during a hospital stay).

But the other way to deal with it– which is apparently unthinkable to Republicans–is to increase spending, in the form of tax increases. Yes, I said the dreaded phrase: tax increases. At the time that Medicare was enacted in 1965, the top marginal tax rate was 70%. Now it’s less than 40%. Of course there’s no money…we’re too busy allowing the uber-wealthy and corporations to skate on their share of the social fabric to create huge population-sized holes in the safety net.

Why don’t Republicans want to do the sensible thing and return tax rates to where they were when Medicare was enacted?

Technorati Tags: conservatives, corporations, current system, existence, marginal tax rate, medical charges, medicare, notion, phrase, population, premiums, private insurance, quot, republicans, safety net, sized holes, social fabric, tax increases, tax rates, top marginal tax rate

Will the tea party dig in and refuse to allow the debt ceiling to be raised? Do they even understand what this means? If the debt ceiling is not raised, and the U.S. goes into default, the economy will crash and the dollar will become virtually worthless overnight. Is the Right so blindly ideological that they will insist on this outcome and screw us all?
I don’t disagree that the debt ceiling is a joke or that the debt is out of control, but if Republicans think that this is the best way to stop the spending, they are delusional.

Technorati Tags: debt ceiling, economy, joke, republicans, tea party, what this means

All these Republicans are screaming about how they want to take the country back, whatever that means, but they sure weren’t saying this when Bush, arguably America’s greatest failure, was in office and screwing everything up.

Hop on my magical carpet and let’s review the Bush years:

–complete collapse of the economy
–banks going bankrupt, insurance companies going bankrupt, car companies going bankrupt
–unemployment spiraling out of control
–beginning of huge budget deficits
–started wars with the wrong countries
–torturing our enemies and denying them basic rights
–tried to appoint his secretary to the Supreme Court
–could barely speak the English language
–failed Iraqi War policy costs us nearly a trillion dollars and thousands of lives
–passed huge tax cuts but then ran up huge deficits (how exactly does this make him conservative?)

It’s almost painful to think back to those days. It really does hurt to remember that an incompetent and completely clueless person like George W. Bush once occupied the White House.

So, again, where were all these "Take Back America" people when Bush was turing into dust everything he touched?

Technorati Tags: banks, budget deficits, car companies, collapse, economy, enemies, english language, failure, george w bush, insurance, insurance companies, iraqi war, magical carpet, republicans, supreme court, tax cuts, trillion, unemployment, war policy, white house

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

Besides the fact that their only argument seems to be "im to greedy to allow any of my money to be taxed to help a less fortunate person afford to LIVE". there doesn’t seem to be any other reason beyond GREED, Selfishness, Hatred of anyone who needs help financially, and GREED.
Here’s an article about how even the FOUNDING FATHERs know that socialized health-care was the only ETHICAL and moral choice out there:

So Republicans? Why do you hate the idea of every one having health-care? Why do you hate the idea of having to help the less fortunate? Aren’t republicans all big about being Christian? yet you hate the poor…

I want to know DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON beyond greed and ignorance that free market health care ONLY benefits the super wealthy, for opposing socialized/universal health care?

Id be willing to bet you don’t. Save your breath if your going to rant about how wrong it is you should part with your money to help some one NOT have to go bankrupt to pay a medical bill…or how all the poor MUST be lazy and should just die…i have already heard those "arguments’…anything new?

PS: Obviously i am biased infavor of universal healthcare, but i REALLY am Curious, if Republicans have any reason beyond GREED, and blind faith inunlimited free market FAILED economics, to deny (make perpetually unaffordable)health care to millions of americans??? I have never heard an argument not based on "how dare others expect me to help others"
Try reading the LINK if nothing ealse, though i realize READING is a bit too difficult for some of the people who oppose universal health care…

Technorati Tags: blind faith, blogs, congress, economics, forbes, fortunate person, founding fathers, greed, hatred, health insurance, insurance, medical bill, medicine, money, moral choice, republicans, selfishness, universal health care, universal healthcare

To those that know anything about the US Senate:

About the health care bill. If a unanimous consent agreement is necessary in order for the rules of floor debate to be agreed to, why can’t a Republican (who doesn’t want the health care bill to pass) simply just not agree to it?

For context, the House Rules committee decides on proposed rules for how a particular bill is going to be debated on the House floor, and then a majority of the House must agree to the rules for debate (and for bill consideration) to proceed. However, in the Senate, the party leaders (rather than a committee) typically meet together and then propose the rules for debate, but then, ALL the senators must agree to it for the bill to proceed. So why couldn’t a Republican senator simply voice opposition to the unanimous consent agreement of the health care bill to stop it from being discussed on the Senate floor (so it couldn’t be passed in the Senate, so it couldn’t be enacted into law)?

I know that it could be, in part, political calculation – if they can defeat the bill without resorting to drastic measures, they’d be more popular. But the problem is that once the unanimous consent agreement is formed, it’s much, much more difficult to stop the bill, so a gamble of letting the bill go forward as normal in hope of getting a higher benefit could backfire if the bill starts appearing likely to pass. Disagreeing with the unanimous consent agreement would spend much of the Republicans’ little political capital, but would ensure that the health care bill would fail.

Another reason why they might not want to disagree with the unanimous consent agreement is because of tradition – Senate custom is that if you disagree with a bill you vote against it after debate is closed, or you vote against closing debate – but you don’t vote against OPENING debate (which the unanimous consent agreement does). So refusing to open debate might not be politically pragmatic for Republican Senators.

But many Republicans, including Congressional Republicans, are much more ideological than politically pragmatic – they truly want to defeat the bill at all costs, because some actually believe that it would "bankrupt America" or kill senior citizens or euthanize certain people in society or refuse care to Republicans and force everyone to participate in it. Senators that believe this (yes, some do) could easily vote nay on the unanimous consent agreement; why wouldn’t a single crazy simply vote no?

Technorati Tags: benefit, drastic measures, floor debate, health care bill, house rules committee, open debate, party leaders, republican senator, republican senators, republicans, senate floor, tradition, unanimous consent agreement, us senate, voice opposition

I’m not asking for your opinion on wether or not private student loans should be allowed to be written off in chapter 7 bankruptcy.

I’m asking what is the liklihood that it will be an amendment anytime soon?

I’m curious because the democrats voted for that very amendment in Februrary 2008. Republicans voted against it overwhelmingly and were the majority so it was removed.

Technorati Tags: chapter 7 bankruptcy, democrats, liklihood, private student loans, republicans, wether

I’m not asking for your opinion on wether or not private student loans should be allowed to be written off in chapter 7 bankruptcy.

I’m asking what is the liklihood that it will be an amendment anytime soon?

I’m curious because the democrats voted for that very amendment in Februrary 2008. Republicans voted against it overwhelmingly and were the majority so it was removed.

Technorati Tags: chapter 7 bankruptcy, democrats, liklihood, private student loans, republicans, wether

After all, President Clinton was born into poverty into a broken home and, by his own hand, fought his way to the top through hard work and talent.

On the other end of the spectrum, bush was born into a pampered life, and given his lack of skills and poor work ethic, he had to ride on his father’s coattails everywhere he went. How else was he going to gain admittance to Yale and Harvard with his dismal academic record? How else was he going to dodge the Vietnam War without his dad pulling strings to get him into the Texas Air National Guard? Who was going to fund all of his businesses and then bail him out when they all went bankrupt? So great were his father’s coattails that in 2000, before anyone had even SEEN a photograph of Bush Jr, Republicans had already ushered him in as their presidential candidate after only hearing he was his father’s son.

If Clinton represents the Democratic meritocracy, then Bush represents the Republican "inheritocracy". That’s fair, isn’t it?

Technorati Tags: academic record, admittance, air national guard, bush jr, coattails, dodge, harvard, meritocracy, photograph, poor work ethic, poverty, president clinton, presidential candidate, pulling strings, quot, republicans, spectrum, texas air national guard, vietnam war, yale

Because there is NO other option. If you are against the health care bill, then you are a Social Darwinist Nazi, who hates the poor and is stupid enough to think they are all lazy, deserve to be poor, die, and are "inferior" to blue blood rich people. Plain and simple. Republican economics have been proven failures. Laissez Faire economics hurt all except the rich, and so does trickle down economics. Make a bill that allows Competition? I got news for you, the insurance companies are so big they can manipulate the market.

So if the republicans hate this bill, which i fell did not go FAR enough, does that mean they think people who cant afford health care don’t deserve it? Or that they deserve to lose their homes in order to get medical care? Hoe cold hearted and unchristian can you get? (aren’t repubs supposed to be christian and help others? guess not)

So please enlighten me, if you are against the health care bill do you feel that people who cant afford it shouldn’t get it, or should be sent into debt so high it makes living no longer worth it?

How sad; the US appears to have voted "we hate the poor let them die…by putting in the repubs" IMO.
what kind of a MORON doesnt want to buy health insurance. That you cant afford it makes sense, that you dont want it means your an idion, and i doubt mostsane people dont WANT insurance
yeah the best health care ONLY 1% of the population can afofrd, i dont consider that something to brag about .
@ coldfuse: There is no persuading republicans, they dont have the brain power of compassion to see the need and feasability for universal health care…

ridicule and condescention? The republicans do it all the time. Thats politics.

Technorati Tags: best health care, blue blood, brain power, coldfuse, compassion, feasability, health care bill, health insurance, idion, imo, insurance companies, laissez faire economics, medical care, moron, nazi, population, republicans, ridicule, social darwinist, universal health care

He is the reason why unions are so powerful in the state which unions have caused this state to go bankrupt along with him going to be catering to Illegal immigrants. Who also left this state with a budget deficit when he was given a budget surplus
Republicans havent destroyed california. California is run by a liberal legislature and a liberal Governor who happens to have a R next to his name

Technorati Tags: budget deficit, budget surplus, california california, illegal immigrants, republicans, unions

Or should Bush/Republicans have done a cost/benefit projection to see how much winning a war is worth?

Again, is it worth ,000 per family? 0,000 per family ? ,000,0000 per family or what? What is the figure before it’s too costly?

Technorati Tags: benefit, bush, republicans, winning a war

The United States was set to go bankrupt anyway, with the baby boomers retiring with its huge Medicare and Social Security cost, plus the social welfare growth, etc.

Now, the United States is granting amnesty to 20 miilion or so illegal aliens who will brink about six relatives each to our nation once the amnesty is official, increasing the poor by about 120 million.

Question–how many years before we become classed as 3rd world? In other words, when will the typical American city look like the typical city in Somalia?

20, 40 75?

I say I say 35 years. What do you say?
Linda,

It does not matter who we elect. Neither the Democrats notr the Republicans care about national sovereignty or the welfare of our future–all they care about is THEIR power. Ckinbton and Carter we jsut as bad as both Bush presidents.
Crusader,

There is a saying that "so goes California, so goes the nation", meaning CA is the trend setter. You are right–California is pretty much third world now in many areas, and we will see the same thing in every American city soon.
Salvatrucho,

You think the US can"profit from this"???

You better start doing some research. These illegals drain money from our taxes at a rate that DWARFS any taxes some of them pay in, and most do not pay in.

When they bring their relatives here, just think–youhave a very low poverty rate past illegal alien (future amnesty citizen) who can’t afford to support himself/herself. How do you think they will support a bunch of relatives? OUR TAXES and social welfare will support them.

Yes, our nation WILL look like Somalia soon, just as some here have described some of California’s cities already do.

I say 35 years as antion as a whole we will be third world status, but in just 10 years, a good portion of the nation already will.

Technorati Tags: 35 years, antion, baby boomers, crusader, granting amnesty, illegal aliens, medicare, national sovereignty, poverty rate, presidents, relatives, republicans, social security, social welfare, somalia, third world, trend setter, typical american city, typical city, will brink

I’ve always known republicans to be hypocrites in the fact that they’re allowed to do things when others aren’t, because they’re always in the right even when they’re wrong. But when their own ideology comes back and smacks them in the face, forcing them to lose their homes over health care costs that they can’t afford, and they find their insurance is just one big scam, is it enough to make them smell the corruption, or do they go off and blame Liberals, mistaking their own party’s policies for that of "the enemy?" I live in Canada so I’m not faced with that situation, but my God, I sure hope that when rednecks in red states suffer, which I’m all too happy to see, they at least realize how they go to that point.

health care medical bills republican conservative bush congress senate insurance

Technorati Tags: bush, canada, congress senate, conservative, corruption, god, health care costs, hypocrites, insurance, liberals, medical bills, red states, rednecks, republican, republicans, senate insurance

Have you noticed that every time liberal morals are questioned, the most common excuse is that republicans do it, too (even if they have to exaggerate republican antics)?

100% of the time, liberals will defend democrats.
0% of the time, liberals take a moral stand (regardless of who’s done what).

Isn’t this how the Nazis were able to get so far, because they had so many morally bankrupt supporters?
Has liberalism become the new fascism?

Technorati Tags: antics, democrats, excuse, fascism, liberalism, liberals, morals, nazis, republicans

is this how republicans show patritsim to the troops
and keep america safe

ha ha h ah hahah

Technorati Tags: hahah, republicans

For all you Republicans out there that’s called Health Care reform.

Technorati Tags: health care reform, republicans

We got rid of Republicans for this?

Technorati Tags: republicans

When democrats raise taxes to pay for the Bush spending spree and Giveaways will we be so short sided as to blame the democrats for being responcible enough to pay our debts .Or should we do like all good republicans and file for bankruptcy .Wipe the slate clean and start from scratch .Its like going to re-hab when you walk out you are free from your past because that was not really you somehow .
I get it now .you just have to lie to yourself every minute of every day and tell yourself that you are ok often enough till you believe it .
How does a person live with themselves when its time to tell the family with a sick child that they have reached the limits of the insurance policy and the treatments will no longer be paid by them .How do they walk around after the fill up the pockets of all their friends with money taken out of people savings that they loaned to there college buddies and familys to buy homes with and then declare the company banckrupt leaving tax payers to foot the bil

Technorati Tags: bankruptcy, bil, bush, college buddies, debts, democrats, familys, giveaways, insurance, insurance policy, money, pockets, republicans, sick child, slate, spending spree, tax payers

***Do not answer this question if you don’t have an ALTERNATIVE to universal healthcare********

Since Republicans are so against universal health care, what would you propose to fix our health care system. Please do not argue that our health care system is adequate because it is obvious that the costs are too high and too many people are uninsured. Furthermore, do not argue that only people who are "bums" don’t have healthcare because many hard-working people can’t afford it.

The article cited below discusses a recent study that concluded that 60% of bankruptcies were filed due to excessive medical bills. In fact, many of these same people had health care, which was inadequate for their bills. Do Republicans have any proposals in how to lower health care costs?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090604/us_nm/us_healthcare_bankruptcy

Technorati Tags: bankruptcies, bankruptcy, bums, health care costs, health care system, medical bills, news yahoo, proposals, republicans, universal health care, universal healthcare, yahoo