|
|
WASHINGTON-- The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die. Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said that a federal drug law does not override the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people. New Chief Justice John Roberts backed the Bush administration, dissenting for the first time. The administration improperly tried to use a drug law to punish Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of prescription medicines, the court majority said. Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Kennedy is expected to become a more influential swing voter after O'Connor's departure. He is a moderate conservative who sometimes joins the liberal wing of the court in cases involving such things as gay rights and capital punishment. The ruling was a reprimand to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who in 2001 said that doctor-assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose and that Oregon physicians would be punished for helping people die under the law. Kennedy said the authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself, Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine. If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death, he wrote. Scalia said the court's ruling is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position. Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people-- those with incurable diseases and who are of sound mind, and after at least two doctors agree they have six months or less to live. For Oregon's physicians and pharmacists, as well as patients and their families, today's ruling confirms that Oregon's law is valid and that they can act under it without fear of federal sanctions, state Solicitor General Mary Williams said. The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide. Ashcroft had brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day his resignation was announced by the White House in 2004. The Justice Department has continued the case, under the leadership of his successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The court's ruling was not a final say on federal authority to override state doctor-assisted suicide laws-- only a declaration that the current federal scheme did not permit that. However, it could still have ramifications outside of Oregon. This is a disappointing decision that is likely to result in a troubling movement by states to pass their own assisted suicide laws, said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which backed the administration. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and a supporter of the law, said the ruling has stopped, for now, the administration's attempts to wrest control of decisions rightfully left to the states and individuals. Thomas wrote his own dissent as well, to complain that the court's reasoning was puzzling. Roberts did not write separately. Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive. Then, justices in 1997 unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. That opinion, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said individual states could decide to allow the practice. Roberts strongly hinted in October when the case was argued that he would back the administration. O'Connor had seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but her vote would not have counted if the ruling was handed down after she left the court. The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © The Sun-Times Company Question regarding possible recession?? s/m With the "bubble bursting" in regards to the housing market and rising fuel prices, do you think a major recession is on the horizon in the US? I definitely think so, but was wondering what others think? The Whiner's Recession Senator McCain and his friends no doubt still believe that the economy's fundamentals are strong, but Friday's jobs numbers clearly show how bad things have gotten. The 6.1 percent unemployment rate reported for August is almost as high as the worst levels from the last recession. A broader measure of labor market weakness, that includes people who can only find part-time work or who have given up looking for jobs, is higher than at any point in the last recession. When the labor market weakens, workers have less bargaining power with their employers. As a result, wages are trailing more than 2 percentage points behind inflation over the last year. Wages are virtually the entire income for most workers. If the purchasing power of their wages falls by 2 percent, this is the equivalent of a 2 percentage point increase in their tax rate. This is worth thinking about. Most workers in the country have just seen the equivalent of a 2 percentage point increase in their tax rate, and it has gotten almost no attention. By contrast, Senator McCain is claiming that the economy will collapse if we increase the tax rate by 3.6 percentage points for people who can't remember how many homes they own. It is easy to understand how a typical family experiences real hardship when their wages don't keep up with the price of food, gas, and heating oil. It's a bit harder to understand how the folks who can't keep track of their homes will suffer by restoring tax rates to the Clinton-era levels. This brings us to the other important point about the Friday jobs numbers. The economy is in bad shape and getting worse. This disaster is happening while we are experimenting with the tax policies advocated by Senator McCain. We have an economy that is now shedding jobs at the rate of almost 100,000 a month. There is no prospect of turnaround in sight. We could have half a million fewer jobs by the time the next president is sworn into office than we do today. This is the Bush-McCain economy. Senator McCain may have forgotten, but President Bush already tried his economic policies and the results are not good. We have just been through a business cycle in which the wage of the typical worker and the typical working family fell. This is the first time that has ever happened. As bad as the situation is, it will surely get worse as the recession deepens. Wages and incomes will fall further behind inflation as the unemployment rate continues to rise. By contrast, the Clinton-era tax rates were associated with the most prosperous period since the early seventies. As I have written many times, Clinton's policies do not deserve all the credit for the prosperity of the late 90s, and President Bush's polices do not deserve all the blame for the economy's poor performance in the current decade. However, it strains credulity to argue that the Clinton-era tax rates are a recipe for stagnation, while the Bush-McCain tax cuts for the rich are the road to prosperity. When he pushes his tax cuts as a remedy for the economy's ills, Senator McCain is effectively imitating Groucho Marx's famous line: "what are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" At this point, McCain should be embarrassed to even say that tax cuts for the rich help the economy. Tax cuts for the rich help the rich, they don't help the economy. It's that simple. This economic catastrophe was many years in the making. There is no painless way to recover from the collapse of the housing bubble and the correction from an over-valued dollar. We do know that Senator McCain's plan to keep giving the rich more money is not a road to prosperity because that is exactly what we have been doing. We can't know exactly how Senator Obama will address the economy's problems if he takes office in January in part because we don't know exactly where the economy will be. However, a plan that focuses on supporting ordinary workers and promoting clean technologies, is likely to produce much better results than policies that are focused on redistributing even more income to the wealthy. http://www.truthout.org/article/the-whiners-recession That happened to me the last recession we had... and it took a good 6 years to right itself after the economy straightened out. And when it did...money went right into a CD. I don't mind a little in the market but I am not young enough to wait several years for rebounding again. Sigh. And you don't think this recession (soon to be depression)...(sm) has anything to do with it? Hey, that's what republicans want, big business to grow fast--no regulation--me, me, me... How about all those families that are going to suffer from this. Did they ask for it too? I'm sure a lot of us knew a recession was coming long before the "experts" knew it. All they had to do was to be Americans who were trying to fill up their gas tanks, feed their families and try to hang on to their jobs. I just read an article the other day where someone in the government finally admitted that we've been in a recession that they believe will last another 14 months. (Can't remember who said it; will try to find the link.) This is after months and months of denials, although most everday folks felt like they were in a recession long before hearing it "officially." If they are only now admitting to a recession, that tells me that we're in the beginnings of a full-fledged DEPRESSION. Add terror threats, a war between Iran and Israel and the USA, perhaps provoking a terror attack (real or "false flag"), people becoming so poor in this country that their fear is replaced with anger, and voila!! The US soldiers that are lying in wait for us to "misbehave" as tensions arise so they can keep us in line, just might have their work cut out for them...especially if we suffer another attack on our soil. We've got crooks running the Treasury Department, all chosen from the same failing companies for which they worked. The Wall Street "crisis" came on so quickly and so urgently that nobody knew what to do. Well, Bush knew what to do. First, he hired Henry Paulson of Goldman Sachs fame, the company that received a $3 billion payout, who then went on to appoint Michael Alix to "oversee things." This is the same Michael Alix who was in control of "overseeing things" at Bear Stearns (we remember how well that whole Bear Stearns thing worked out.) Paulson then went on to appoint Neel Kashkari (another Goldman Sachs graduate). Bush has selected these men, either personally or through Paulson, because he knows that THEY know how to play the system and accentuate the greed. He hired people who aren't on America's side at all. They're part of Bush's "Haves," and the rest of average Americans -- the "have nots" -- aren't even in the picture, except as it pertains to how much money has been stolen from our accounts. Bush has always has been about greed. He still is. When a government begins to buy banks, it's at the very least socialism (if not, more accurately, fascism). For all intents and purposes, this money could easily be in Bush's pockets. We don't and won't know this because this particular sweetheart deal came with NO oversight and NO transparency as conditions on the part of Bush. By the way, Bush bought a ranch in Paraguay. Basically, Bush had a lot of knowledgeable, independent people who had NO conflict of interest from having been senior executives of the failed companies from which he could have chosen. Instead, he chose those who were at the very top to the crooks (if not the crooks themselves.) In short, Bush hired the foxes to watch the hen houses. No doubt in my mind that Bush's pockets are going to be pretty full soon if they're not already. The arrogance with which these auto executives presented their testimony is reminiscent of all the arrogant people who surround themselves with the Arrogant-In-Chief. In the middle of all this, though, I do see somewhat of a silver lining. The less money people have to spend, the lower prices will be forced to go -- all that supply and demand stuff. Enter Obama's "bottom-up" theory. Once the lives of the least of us can improve a bit, that will hopefully trickle up to everyone else. I also heard an excellent idea on TV recently: That every single CEO of a company should NEVER earn more than the President of the United States. I kind of liked that one. P.S. I apologize if this post doesn't make any sense. I'm very heavily medicated right now and probably shouldn't even be at the computer. I've tried to write this as coherently as I could. If I failed, I apologize. Hope you all have a great evening. I meant recession, not depression. nm 
Worried about a recession?? Here's the solution s/m With Recession Looming, Bush Tells America To ‘Go Shopping More’Today, President Bush held a news conference where he discussed the “way forward” for the economy in 2007. Renowned Morgan Stanley economist Steven Roach says the the “odds of the U.S. economy tipping into recession are about 40 to 45 per cent.” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman notes that “the odds are very good — maybe 2 to 1,” that the U.S. will teeter toward a recession in 2007. Bush’s solution? “Go shopping more.” Michigan is in a one state recession. sm The big 3 are tanking, our unemployment numbers are higher than the nation as a whole, jobs are leaving like the spring thaw, and who does Obama pick as part of his "Financial Advisory Committee"....none other than our wonderful governor, Jennifer Granholm. She can't advise her own state let alone the country. She now says that we have to cut the budget even more than last time. There isn't a whole lot left to cut. Our education system is absolutely the pits, Detroit is bankrupting us all, and she gets picked for part of the financial advisory committee. Makes me wonder what's going in Obama's head. Oh well, at least I have a trade I can take with me where ever I go. The ultimate in healthcare portability. Change recession to depression and I'll agree with you. They just signed America's death warrant. The Great Recession. American a thrift nation. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891527,00.html?cnn=yes Sometimes we change because we want to: lose weight, go vegan, find God, get sober. But sometimes we change because we have no choice, and since this violates our manifest destiny to do as we please, it may take a while before we notice that those are often the changes we need to make most. We ran a good long road test of the premise that more is better: we built houses that could hold all our stuff but were too big to heat; we bought cars that could ferry a soccer team but were too big to park; we thought we were embracing the simple life by squeezing in a yoga class between working and shopping and took an extra job to pay for it all. Now we're stripping down and starting over. A platoon of TIME reporters and pollsters fanned out to every corner of the country to measure — anecdotally and empirically — what's changed in the way we set our priorities and spend our money since the Great Recession began. Most people think the pain will be lasting and the effects permanent: only 12% expect economic recovery to begin within six months, half believe it will be another year or two, and 14% believe we are at the start of a long-term decline. (See TIME's special report on how Americans have adjusted to the recession.) Our institutions watch for economic vital signs. But maybe, for individuals, the sickness is what came before — the hallucination that debt would never need to be repaid, that values only rise, that bubbles never burst. When the markets collapsed, that fever broke. In our assumptions and attitudes and expectations, the recovery is already well under way. Talk to people not just about how they feel but about how they're living now, and you hear more resolve than regret. Nearly half say their economic status declined this year, and 57% now think the American Dream is harder to achieve. And yet pain and promise are a package deal; even after all this, fully 56% believe that America's best days are ahead. It would be nice if it took something short of a heart attack to get us to work out, eat better and spend more time with our kids. But in the end, where we wind up matters more than how we got there. Unlike any other downturn since the 1930s, this one has affected everyone, either the fact of it or the fear of it. Even when prosperity returns, 61% predict, they'll continue to spend less than they did before. Among people earning less than $50,000 a year — roughly half of U.S. households — 34% have not gone to the doctor because of the cost, 31% have been out of work at some point, and 13% have been hungry. At the same time, 4 in 10 people earning more than $100,000 say they are buying more store brands, 36% are using coupons more, and 39% have postponed or canceled a vacation to save money. Forty percent of people at all income levels say they feel anxious, 32% have trouble sleeping, and 20% are depressed. After a season of big news, of war and storms and swindlers, pirates and poison peanut butter, 43% are watching the news even more, taking the medicine even if it tastes bad because skipping it could be risky. (See the worst business deals of 2008.) The calculus of life suddenly offers new equations. Insurance agents see clients raising their deductibles to lower premiums, or skipping collision coverage for older cars so that they bear more of the risks themselves. Twenty-seven percent have raided their retirement or college savings to pay the bills. Violent crime may not be up, but fear of it is: 40% of people say that since the downturn began, they are more worried about their personal safety. Gun sales at large retail stores have jumped 39% this year, according to the SportsOneSource, a research firm that tracks the sporting-goods industry, and shops are reporting ammunition shortages; they can't keep up with demand. For all the reflexive analogies, this is not the 1930s, when Babe Ruth took a $10,000 salary cut (roughly what A-Rod earns per swing) and New York City Mayor Jimmy Walker told theaters to show only cheery films. And yet we're channeling our grandparents, who were taught, like a mantra, to use it up, wear it out, make it do, do without. Now, if you can make it, you don't have to buy it: just replace the lawn with a vegetable garden, eat your fill and then store whatever is left. Sales of canning and freezing supplies rose 15% during the first three months of the year compared with the same period last year. Cough- and cold-remedy sales are down 9% because you can make your own chicken soup; vitamin sales are up, maybe because you hope you won't need to. Common sense is back in style, meaning we're less willing to buy what we can have for free: bottled-water sales have dropped 10%. The 137-year-old Los Angeles public library system set record highs in circulation and visitors. And film and camera sales have plunged 33% this year, because who would want this winter in their album? There's a natural longing to find the upside in the downturn. A college-admissions officer, watching families reassess their means and ends, suggests that maybe the insane competitiveness will recede. The yoga instructor says living more simply relaxes us, as if the entire country needs to slow its breathing. The buyer at the used-car lot feels both frugal and green: that hatchback isn't used, it's "pre-owned," and this counts as recycling. The discount shoppers view their task as a scavenger hunt and take a certain pride in finding the bargain, cutting the deal; 23% of us are haggling more, a profitable contact sport. No one wishes for hardship. But as we pick through the economic rubble, we may find that our riches have buried our treasures. Money does not buy happiness; Scripture asserts this, research confirms it. Once you reach the median level of income, roughly $50,000 a year, wealth and contentment go their separate ways, and studies find that a millionaire is no more likely to be happy than someone earning one-twentieth as much. Now a third of people polled say they are spending more time with family and friends, and nearly four times as many people say their relations with their kids have gotten better during this crisis than say they have gotten worse. A consumer culture invites us to want more than we can ever have; a culture of thrift invites us to be grateful for whatever we can get. So we pass the time by tending our gardens and patching our safety nets and debating whether, years from now, this season will be remembered for what we lost, or all that we found. And George kept up with those "we are not in a recession" speeches, hilarious but tragic....nm nm George Soros is having "a very good recession". Made $2.9 billion. So, this "man of the people" who funds the loony left and wants all the rest of us to be communists rakes in $billions from the recession. He's out there picking up stuff at bargain-basement prices just like JP Morgan and his kind did. Disgusting. war, depression, recession, collapse of financial system, people losing homes, natural disasters unattended to, collapsing bridges, earmark bridges. Address those first, save flag for later.
Nation has lost 4.4 million jobs since recession began in Dec. 2007 Unemployment rate soars to 8.1 percent WASHINGTON - The nation's unemployment rate bolted to 8.1 percent in February, the highest since late 1983, as cost-cutting employers slashed 651,000 jobs. Both figures were worse than analysts expected and the Labor Department's report shows America's workers being clobbered by a relentless wave of layoffs. The net loss of jobs in February came after even deeper payroll reductions in the prior two months, according to revised figures. The economy lost 681,000 jobs in December and another 655,000 in January. Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost 4.4 million jobs, more than half of which occurred in the past four months. Employers are shrinking their work forces at alarming clip and are turning to other ways to slash costs — including trimming workers' hours, freezing wages or cutting pay — because the recession has eaten into their sales and profits. Customers at home and abroad are cutting back as other countries cope with their own economic problems. With employers showing no appetite to hire, the unemployment jumped to 8.1 percent from 7.6 percent in January. That was the highest since December 1983, when the jobless rate was 8.3 percent. All told, the number of unemployed people climbed to 12.5 million. In addition, the number of people forced to work part time for "economic reasons" rose by a sharp 787,000 to 8.6 million. That's people who would like to work full time but whose hours were cut back or were unable to find full-time work. Meanwhile, the average work week in February stayed at 33.3 hours, matching the record low set in December. Job losses were widespread in February. Construction companies eliminated 104,000 jobs. Factories axed 168,000. Retailers cut nearly 40,000. Professional and business services got rid of 180,000, with 78,000 jobs lost at temporary-help agencies. Financial companies reduced payrolls by 44,000. Leisure and hospitality firms chopped 33,000 positions. The few areas spared: education and health services, as well as government, which boosted employment last month. A new wave of layoffs hit this week. General Dynamics Corp. said Thursday it will lay off 1,200 workers due partly to plummeting sales of business and personal jets that forced it to cut production. Defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp., and Tyco Electronics Ltd., which makes electronic components, undersea telecommunications systems and wireless equipment, also are trimming payrolls. "This is basically cleaning house for a lot of firms," said John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia. "They are using the first quarter to cut back employment and figure out what they want." Disappearing jobs and evaporating wealth from tanking home values, 401(k)s and other investments have forced consumers to retrench, driving companies to lay off workers. It's a vicious cycle in which all the economy's negative problems feed on each other, worsening the downward spiral. "The economy is in a tailspin. Businesses are jettisoning jobs at an unprecedented pace," said Richard Yamarone, economist at Argus Research. The country is getting bloodied by fallout from the housing, credit and financial crises_ the worst since the 1930s. And there's no easy fix for a quick turnaround, economists said. President Barack Obama is counting on a multipronged assault to lift the country out of recession: a $787 billion stimulus package of increased federal spending and tax cuts; a revamped, multibillion-dollar bailout program for the nation's troubled banks; and a $75 billion effort to stem home foreclosures. Even in the best-case scenario that the relief efforts work and the recession ends later in 2009, the unemployment rate is expected to keep climbing, hitting 9 percent or higher this year. In fact, the Federal Reserve thinks the unemployment rate will stay elevated into 2011. Economists say the job market may not get back to normal — meaning a 5 percent unemployment rate — until 2013. Businesses won't be inclined to ramp up hiring until they are sure any economic recovery has staying power. The economy contracted at a staggering 6.2 percent in the final three months of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century, and it will probably continue to shrink during the first six months of this year. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress earlier this week that recent economic barometers "show little sign of improvement" and suggest that "labor market conditions may have worsened further in recent weeks." Consumers’ growing frugality has hammered automakers, among other industries. General Motors Corp.'s auditors on Thursday raised "substantial doubt" about the auto giant’s ability to continue operations, and the company said it might have to seek bankruptcy protection, sending its shares below $2. Bill Hampel, chief economist for the Credit Union National Association, said his group’s members are reporting record increases in deposits. Government figures show the savings rate jumped to 5 percent in January from zero last spring. That’s the highest rate since 1995 and a much faster shift than he had expected, Hampel said. Consumer spending makes up about 70 percent of the economy. It topped out at 71 percent in 2005, Hampel said, but will likely drop by 2 to 3 percentage points over the next few years. Increased savings can actually lower economic growth. Economists call it the “paradox of thrift”: What’s good for each of us individually — being thrifty, limiting our spending — can worsen a recession when everyone does it all at once. Hoffman said about half the 6.2 percent drop in economic output last quarter was attributable to lower consumer spending. They don't want to run the government... You are exactly right. And that is twisted beyond belief in my opinion. That has absolutely nothing to do with protecting this country or what is best for the country as a whole. It is personal, and like you said, revenge. I wish every state in the nation would do a recall of senators and reps if they start down that road, though I doubt that would ever happen. I saw another post that likened it to fiddling while Rome is burning. They just really do not have a clue. Not a clue. You bet the government could come up... with the money to fund the rest. It's called raising taxes, the Democratic mantra. What would Jesus do? I have no doubt that Jesus would say it was the responsibility of parents to take care of their children, for one. I am sure he would also say that a country that murders millions of babies every year has bigger problems than free health care. I am thinking it would be hard to take you seriously. But that is just me. Don't get me wrong. I think the rest of us should take care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves. I just do not believe this qualifies. Instead of making the hard choices, trying to cut costs, finding better ways to make health care more affordable by tax cuts for those who pay health care premiums, etc., the Democrats want to do what they do so well...dangle something "free" in faces of people at election time. Clinton promised it, and what they came up with was socialized medicine, which went nowhere, thank God. Democrats just want to add entitlement after entitlement, tax us into oblivion and keep us tied to the government apron strings. Otherwise they would look at solutions like tax cuts for those who pay their insurance premiums. But..oh wait. You don't want that. Because you have to pay the premiums to get the tax break, and you don't want to pay the premiums. Pardon me if I don't want to fund that logic. Truly destitute people, yes, those truly in need we should do everything we can to help them and do. A family of 4 making 80K is not destitute. How about this. If you want on SCHIP, you have to sign a paper acknowledging they are going to take an additional 3% in income tax on you from now on to offset it. In return you get your "free" health care for your children. No taxes raised on anyone else, including smokers (and no I don't smoke, but I don't think it is any worse asking smokers to pay for expansion of the program if you are not willing to pay for it yourself, after all, you are going to be a user of it). That sounds like a fine idea to me. Oh, and raise income taxes on all Democrats 3%. That should cover it. Expand the program, users and Democrats pay for it. Sounds like a plan to me. Don't know what you make, but it would surely come to less than $12K a year. Run that one by your Democratic congressman. Have a good night! so let the government tell us?? Sorry, I want less government intervention, not more, in my life. How do you think the government will continue to spend when they can't collect taxes to spend because most people don't have jobs and are in need of welfare????? SOOOOO okay, let's keep fighting about party affiliation. *IF* Obama is elected I sure hope he turns out to be the modern day FDR. Government When a president decides to buy banks, they call that FASCISM. This is exactly what Bush has done. Why do you not have a problem with that? Are all of you so rich that you don't know what the middle class is going through these days? This country is in a shambles, and people are suffering through no fault of their own. It's HIGH TIME the plight of the middle class is acknowledged and some help offered. This "trickle-down" theory is NOT working, and it's time to employ the "trickle-UP" theory. You must really, really like big government...sm ...that will tax and spend us all right into the ground. I was hoping he pulls to the center, but it's looking like the O is gonna be way, way left of everybody......yeah, real wonderful feeling, that.... Here's hoping the depression doesn't last too long.... Government knows what they are doing. They are doing all they can to make THEIR life comfortable. As long as they are getting paid and their pockets are getting filled with money......that is all they care about. We can't trust our government. Look at what trusting the government has done to us so far. Our economy is in shambles and the government wants to blow over 800 billion dollars again. This isn't going to fix our economy. It is just going to raise government spending and leave an even bigger deficit than we already had for our grandchildren. This stimulus package is a joke. I am totally against it! What I want to know is why can't the government start something that would charge companies who outsource production to other countries? Let them open up a factory in another country but they have to pay a huge tax or something to do it. Make it to where it isn't a good financial decision so we can keep the jobs we have now and create more. That would help us MTs out as well. What is the point of creating jobs in our country if companies can still up and leave to go to other countries? Seriously....what is made in America? Even foreign cars like Honda who have factories here in America.....that money still doesn't go to the US. I know it employes Americans but the majority of the money there still goes out of the country. I want American made goods made by Americans. I also think people hiring illegal aliens should be penalized and fined heavily for doing so. That would stop that crap too. So you would rather government take your money, just like my money, and put it into a package where it gives money to this group and that group and this group over here and just hope that they use that money wisely and that it helps the people who need help? Like I said before....that worked out swell when we gave money to the banks. I don't want my money to go for irresponsible people either but you know what....it is and it will. You all talk about how everyone should have healthcare and how government should fund healthcare, through taxpayer money, so everyone is insured. Yet you refuse to give money so people can keep their houses? Yes, some were irresponsible and were just plain dumb in their decisions and yet some just got a raw deal during this tough time and got dragged down. You all talk about conservatives flipping sides when a handout comes along but it sounds to me like all these liberals want to help others out until it comes time to give that help. Healthcare for all paid by taxpayers. You may not have a home and your kids may not have a warm bed to sleep in....but hey....you got healthcare.....whoooopppeee! Maybe the government should legalize marijuana and then tax the he!! out of it too. They could make more money with all the pot smokers out there. Sad. The Government is going to own all of us. nm Do you get that the government is sm slowly getting more and more into the lives of the people and telling us what to do and how to live our lives? This is nothing more than a quick road to total government control of everyone. Just for arguments sake, they get the stupid "permit." That is nothing but money for the county. The county doesn't care about all these rules and neither do the neighbors. If the folks get their permit and things are the same and don't change.....same amount of people, every week, etc etc, don't you think somebody will find something else to complain about regarding this group? This is a bunch of nonsense and Christian persecution that Jesus himself said would happen in the last days. Wake up. Not exactly. The government is getting 100 cartons since 2005, not 1981. So they don't have to pretend to say anything. They've got documentation from the vendors. Okay...if our government tries to stop us surfing porn sites....that is where I draw the line. LOL!
If you think the government isn't watching you...think again. Pay too much and you could raise the alarm By BOB KERR The Providence Journal 28-FEB-06 PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Walter Soehnge is a retired Texas schoolteacher who traveled north with his wife, Deana, saw summer change to fall in Rhode Island and decided this was a place to stay for a while. So the Soehnges live in Scituate now and Walter sometimes has breakfast at the Gentleman Farmer in Scituate Village, where he has passed the test and become a regular despite an accent that is definitely not local. And it was there, at his usual table last week, that he told me that he was madder than a panther with kerosene on his tail. He says things like that. Texas does leave its mark on a man. What got him so upset might seem trivial to some people who have learned to accept small infringements on their freedom as just part of the way things are in this age of terror-fed paranoia. It's that everything changed after 9/11 thing. But not Walter. We're a product of the '60s, he said. We believe government should be way away from us in that regard. He was referring to the recent decision by him and his wife to be responsible, to do the kind of thing that just about anyone would say makes good, solid financial sense. They paid down some debt. The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522. And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable. And all they did was pay down their debt. They didn't call a suspected terrorist on their cell phone. They didn't try to sneak a machine gun through customs. They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast. After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed. So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called. When you mess with my money, I want to know why, he said. They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking. They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted. Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and me. And he went on the Internet to see what he could learn. He learned about changes in something called the Bank Privacy Act. The more I'm on, the scarier it gets, he said. It's scary how easily someone in Homeland Security can get permission to spy. Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up. The Soehnges were apparently found not to be promoting global terrorism under the guise of paying a credit-card bill. They never did learn how a large credit card payment can pose a security threat. But the experience has been a reminder that a small piece of privacy has been surrendered. Walter Soehnge, who says he holds solid, middle-of-the-road American beliefs, worries about rights being lost. If it can happen to me, it can happen to others, he said. (Bob Kerr is a columnist for The Providence Journal. E-mail bkerr@projo.com.) (Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.shns.com.) Hmm, I would say most do not trust government.sm Fear and paranoia are a given, they instill it in us 24/7. Viewership of MSM outlets is way down, so I guess Fox would be #1 with just Bush supporters. I want truth and accountability from the media and our elected officials period. I dumped the Republican party because we are not getting truth or accountability. I will vote for the first candidate that does something about it. I still don't believe government-controlled... or provided insurance is the answer. Just today read article about how a bunch of women from Canada who had problem pregnancies had to come to the US to have their babies because of the socialized medicine in Canada because...news flash...you can't put a pregnant woman on a waiting list for treatment because babies are born when babies want to be born...and that is what happens when the government administrates health care. Waiting lists...substandard care...and on and on and on. The VA is a government administered health program...go ahead and tell me THAT works. We need to come up with a better plan than socialized medicine...like prioritizing social spending. If you really want to insure all kids, then give their parents a big tax break for insuring them themselves...don't extend entitlements higher and higher up the income ladder. Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. When the troops come home and the war is over, you can talk about that money then. It is nonstarter while we still have troops in combat, no matter who sent them or why (and by the way, it was not George Bush personally, it was your duly elected Congress). We have to fund them while they are in combat. I don't think even the most liberal (no matter what the definition is) would be for withdrawing funding while we still have men and women in combat. I don't think the government owes me a job I just don't understand why they go out of their way to send our jobs overseas. The government's job is to protect and serve the American people - not the people of other countries. They need to work for US. The same goes for businesses. If they start ditching American workers for cheaper overseas labor, then who is going to buy all of their products? Americans won't have the money because we'll be jobless! Yes, but the government shouldn't be encouraging companies to outsource either. Our country has way messed up priorities when the only people making big bucks are entertainers and greedy CEOs. Meanwhile, we've got unemployed people and poverty. Hey, let's send our money, our technology and our private data to a country that HATES us. And put in the hands of government? No thanks. Every time government manages social programs it fails miserably. The (unregulated) free market is the best way to handle health care another other things. The problem now is government has their hands too much into the pot with regulation via the insurance companies. You think it's bad now wait until the government has sole control. Name 1 things Government does well? 1. The post office? Waited in line lately for stamps or to mail a package? 2. Waited in line to renew drivers licence lately? Compettion is what drives prices down, not mandates form the government Is that all you got? I think the fact that she can run a government.... which she has been doing, and well too...and still cook for her kids (let the chef go when she was elected), travels on her own dime (got rid of the state jet)...and still have time to see her kids' hockey games is nothing to sneeze at. She does not have to do one to the exclusion of the other. You sound jealous and snippy. Geez. government controls the VA system and I know from experience how well that works!!! NOT!! The VA physicians who dealt with my father diagnosed him with an umbilical hernia that turned out to be a huge tumor and he died two weeks later!! He waited for months and months to even get in for a consult through the VA system and that never did happen, as I took him to a local ER and that same day they diagnosed him with end stage colon cancer. He had seen several physicians within the VA system for years. With the government controlling THAT and then they want to control MY healthcare as well? ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? I may have to pay for my insurance but at least I get better healthcare than if the government steps in. I'm so tired of people whining about what the government owes them!! How about people doing for themselves? Everyone goes through hardship. BOOHOO!! I have myself and ya know what???? I got back on my feet by HARD WORK!!! Don't hear me all crying about what the government owes me!! People need to WAKE UP!!! We all need to take responsibility for ourselves and help who we choose when we choose, not because the government is taking money out of our pockets and telling us who we will help. VOTE FOR MCCAIN! Do you think our government should bail out FM/FM Just wondered what everyone thinks about this subject. I haven't seen it discussed yet and if it has been sorry. Do you think the government should bail out these two institutions and if so, or not so, why? I heard someone on the TV today (didn't recognize the name but he's an idependent) he asked the question, so is it going to be the people who make $30K a year the ones who pay for this or the billionaires and trillionaires? I thought that was a good point. Also I heard that one of the guys in charge (forget his name right now) made over $90 million and he isn't paying anything. I would think that if you make over $90M on this and you run it into the ground you should have to forfeit whatever you made and pay it back (but that's my own opinion).
Why states' government is just as Just to narrow their choices down to who they want instead of letting the people decide, as in a free democracy, even the states are changing their rules without the knowledge of its citizens.......... http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/editorials/URGENT_Party_Switching_Deadlines.html
Maybe he should run for some other government office. He is soooooo right, the less government does, http://www.eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=3304&title=Ron_Paul_on_Fox_Business_Oct__3rd__2008__Pre_Bailout_ Government sponsored god I don't think I want to see that. Your post that Jesus loves us even if we don't love him put a song running through my head.....Alzheimer.........what's the name of it, "He loved me ere I knew him, so all my love is due him...." What's the NAME of that hymn????? Government take God....either he's in your heart $$ |
|||||||
 |
 |
||||||
marks the location of current message within thread
