Serious post regarding S-CHIP for those interested...see inside
Posted By: Observer on 2007-10-15
In Reply to:
Apparently the individual states have a lot of discretion as to how they spend the federal CHIP money. Pennsylvania, according to their website (PAkids.com I think, or something like that), isay they will insure ALL kids, no matter how much money their parents make. Only kids who are eligible for Medical Assistance (for lower income families I think) are not eligible. It says either it will be provided free or at a much reduced cost. So, even before expansion, had individual states chosen to, they could have provided insurance to all kids apparently. So if anyone is interested in seeing how their state handles the money, or is need of assistance, I would suggest going to individual state websites and see how their individual states handle the money. If PA can do it, I would think other states could do it too....?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Thanks for posting this. It is interesting...link inside for those interested.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
great post! NM inside
xx
Do you have an answer for the inside post
nm
I stand by my post as before - see message inside
I'm reading posts and you are all acting as though the child is living and outside the body already in school and is then taken away to be murdered.
I read another post that said "before you even know you are pregnant the heart is beating". This is totally false! Week 4 is when the brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form and continue to form. To suggest that at the instancy of sex you now have a live breathing baby whose heart is beating and brain is fully developed is absurd. - which by the way they can't speak for themselves so that is what you are all here for. Having an abortion before the baby is developed is the safest. You can call it as you like to. Most of you have a heart so cruel you like to label people as murderers. This embryo is not someone, it is an embryo. Full term abortions and killing babies outside the womb I believe is disgusting and vile. As for Laci Peterson - she was getting ready to give birth to a baby. If that baby was born it would lived. Yeah, but that's a whole different topic, but to have an abortion before the organs are fully developed and the child's brain has developed and they have no nerves so cannot feel anything is a different story.
Lastly, I would never have an abortion myself, but if by chance I did and the embryo has not had time to develop (first trimester) then you keep your nose out of my business where it does not belong. I answer to one higher being (our creator) not you!!!!!
I stand by the original poster. Keep your noses out of where they don't belong.
P.S. - I certainly am not going to listen to a bunch of hipocrites who will murder innocent animals so they can devour them at their meals. Now that is disgusting to me!!
This is a "bash free" post - see inside.
You posted on 8/26 about abortions – your title said don’t read if it bothers you so there was no need to shout it as us as we all can read.
That’s fine you want to post about abortion, but you also posted on 8/25 about abortion not counting the numerous times you brought in the subject of abortion to other posts (in all fairness you did not start those conversations) but what started out as one subject you turned into abortion issues. So in the beginning the postings about abortions were fine but then it started getting very tiring and when people disagreed that is when you started in on them.
I read messages from people not bashing you but simply stating they were tired of hearing the same thing and that’s when you started bashing them.
One post said “We stopped reading your posts a long time ago” That is not a bash. Another post said “My sentiments exactly”. Again that is not a bash. But you came back and said “Enter the cheerleader. Predictable. So much for listening to the other side. Then inside the message you called them a liberal and said if they only believed their philosophy it might actually BE a better world” That is bashing!
Then someone came back and said “listening over, and over, and over and inside said she is not affiliated with any party and most definitely am not a liberal. Again – that is not a bash.
Then more posts after that. My point is you were the first to start the “bashings”. When people tell you they are tired of hearing about the abortion subject (without bashing you) you don’t like that and have to give a nasty comment to them.
I have read six posters all saying the subject matter is getting tiring and old and that it was covered extensively below in other posts. The “we” I am referring to are those six posters.
Abortion is just one issue that people feel very strongly about which will eventually lead to heated words if people don’t agree with the posters viewpoint, then comes the bashing, people being called liberals when nobody knows what their viewpoints are. Sure we all feel strongly about issues but we don’t like being called names. I read all the previous posts and not once did I read any post where anyone called you a name.
It is a free board and everyone is entitled to post what they want but like the latest poster said there is no need to bring it up again. I say there are way too many interesting things in politics going on. I’m sure I will start up some new topics. What’s that saying. “Let’s let sleeping dogs lie” (at least I think that’s the saying) :-) – just say lets give the abortion subject a rest.
true, your post has nothing inside it. Your point please?
??
Hi, Your llink did not show up, only 'page not found.' so I post my link inside...sm
NewsWorld newsIran
Tehran braces for crackdown as protesters vow to defy KhameneiSupreme leader warns Mousavi supporters against bloodshed
guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 June 2009
Iran's opposition faces a critical test of resolve and the country an uncertain future tomorrow after the Islamic regime's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a blunt warning to those involved in mass protests over last week's "stolen" presidential election that they would "bear the responsibility" for any bloodshed.
Khamenei rejected accusations of fraud in the poll, confirmed the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as the winner, and gave no ground to the millions of Iranians demanding their votes back.
Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims he beat Ahmadinejad in the race, was said by an ally to have no plans for unauthorised rallies tomorrow following the warning, but supporters vowed to go on protesting.
Fears grew tonight of an intensifying crackdown on media and opposition activists. Students at the fine arts faculty of Tehran University – where scores of students were injured and some reported killed after raids by security forces earlier this week – announced an indefinite sit-in starting tomorrow.
Khamenei's closely watched speech at prayers at Tehran University could hardly have been tougher. It had been hoped he might adopt a more conciliatory tone that would help defuse the gathering crisis, the worst in Iran's 30-year post-revolutionary history. But he warned: "If there is any bloodshed, the leaders of the protests will be held directly responsible. The result of the election comes from the ballot box, not from the street. Today the Iranian nation needs calm."
Tens of thousands of worshippers cheered as he told them: "It is your victory. They cannot manipulate it."
Mousavi, a moderate former prime minister whose "green" movement scared the regime with the support it was attracting, ignored a call to attend the prayer meeting and now faces a dilemma over his next step. Ignoring Khamenei's message risks bloodshed on a far larger scale than the eight people killed last week. Accepting it means surrender to the regime.
The reformist cleric Mehdi Karroubi, another candidate for the presidency, added to the pressure tonight by also calling for the election to be annulled. "Accept the Iranian nation's will by cancelling the vote and guarantee the establishment's survival," he urged.
Khamenei attacked opponents at home but also lambasted Iran's enemies abroad in hardline remarks that bode ill for any opening to the US, where Barack Obama is seeking talks to tackle worries over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Britain was attacked as "the most evil", but the US, Israel and "Zionist-controlled" media were also abused, as was Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state. "The enemies are targeting the Islamic establishment's legitimacy by questioning the election and its authenticity before and after [the vote]," said Khamenei.
The speech underlined the sense of profound crisis, since the supreme leader usually only speaks in public at the end of Ramadan and on the anniversary of the 1979 revolution.
Analysts and commentators were dismayed by its implications. Sadegh Saba, chief analyst for BBC Persian TV, said: "Mousavi wants the protests to continue but Khamenei is saying if they do there might be bloodshed – and it will be on your hands."
Issa Saharkhiz, a Tehran-based pro-reformist commentator, said Khamenei's speech had transformed the crisis from a conflict over the election result into a trial of his own political authority, which was now being openly questioned. "Now the issue is that the supreme leader's sense of justice, management and competence is under question," he told Deutsche Welle. "The leadership of the country cannot be left in the hands of such a person, who for the sake of preserving himself and his own power, threatens people with mass murder."
Crucially, Khamenei ruled out any cheating in the election, apparently dashing hopes that a partial recount ordered by the guardian council, a supervisory body of senior clerics, will mitigate the crisis.
Khamenei's call for Mousavi and Karroubi to confine their protests to legal avenues prompted mockery. "This means that Imam Hossein [the third most revered figure in Shia Islam], instead of making a last stand at Karbala, [should have] pursued his grievances through the legal process," one blogger said on the Farsi blogsite Balatarin.
Balatarin was flooded with messages voicing outrage at Khamenei's warning that opposition leaders would be held responsible for further unrest and bloodshed. One correspondent wrote: "Mr Khamenei, the direct responsibility for any damage to people's lives or property from now on lies with you."
In Washington, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to condemn Tehran's crackdown on demonstrators. It was the strongest message yet to Iran.
chip
Wow, when I disagree with a conservative, it is a chip on my shoulder, but when conservatives disagree with a liberal, it is their G-d given right?
Now, if you really do want to understand what the Jews believe regarding the beginning of life, I suggest you research it. It is far too complex an issue to be discussed on this board. Their are many excellent Jewish sites and I am sure, a rabbi or scholar who would love to debate this issue with you. But, please remember, the old testament that most Christians read is not entirely the same as the old testament studied by the Jews. Many things have been changed in the interpretation, which is why we are all required to learn Hebrew, so we can study the original text.
But in summary, I don't believe that life starts until we breath, so to me, abortion is not taking a life, because there is no life yet. This is not condoning abortion, it is just regarded as any other medical procedure. If that offends you, I am sorry, but that is how I see it.
S-CHIP
Yes, I am definitely for the states having control in this situation. When controlled at a federal level it is a one way only situation. When given to states, they have the means and way to come up with innovative programs that work for their state and its inhabitants. That is how PA came up with a plan to be able to insure all children in the state, no matter what income level, either free or at a much reduced cost. They have been doing that for several years, with the federal funds they received under the old program, without any expansion. They apparently prioritized, which is what I was suggesting needed to be done in the first place. I have no issues at all with control at the state level. PA just proves it can be done. They were able to do it in Massachusetts too under Mitt Romney as governor...if I am not mistaken that also extends to adults...and with a balanced state budget. I have to give Romney that....he is a financial genius. At any rate...when you give states more control than the feds over their own destiny, they can make strides in a program that would never be reached if the feds ran it. There are a multitude of reasons why I believe in more power to the states...this is just an one example. Knowing this, though, get some people together and do email and calls to your state congresspeople to prioritize this program. According to the federal description, it is at the discretion of the states how the money is spent.
You did not sound rude. I appreciate your post. I was just trying to help. I wanted it to be a positive post, not a negative one.
How is saying you have a chip on your
shoulder calling you a homo? LOL, talk about looking for an excuse to be offended...
How about removing that chip for a sec? sm
You are right, you didn't quote it. But you did reference it. Now, having said that, that was a pretty broad reference. Please explain for us dumb Christians what you mean by what you have just said and how that condones abortion or defines life. Thank you.
Chip on your shoulder?
There are intelligent blacks and there are ignorant blacks. There are intelligent whites and there are ignorant whites. Obviously many blacks are against Obama; our UPS driver, who is also a good friend, is dead set against Obama. If you want to learn a little about Black Power go and visit Obama's church's website. There you have (in my opinion) a very radical racial group.
Voting for Lou Dobbs and T. Boone Pickens.
That chip on your shoulder
is cutting off the oxygen supply to your brain.
If you weren't living in America, the greatest nation in the history of the world, you wouldn't be able to openly bash everything you disagree with (like the president, religion, and the people of Israel).
You need a mental detox perhaps. You just come off as so bitter and knee-jerk reactionary it makes me wonder if you have any joy in your life.
Please take some time to find some beauty in the world. It's abundant. Maybe then you could post something besides the endless bitter diatribes.
You definitely have a chip on your shoulder.
x
Micro chip in Christians maybe?
We dont need entertainment when it comes to people and their beliefs..I think you need to check with your Jewish friends (are there any in your neck of the woods?) and see if they were **entertained** with her comments, if they laughed while looking at their parents tattoos from Germany or remembering the stories of their grandparents escaping Europe before and during WWII..LOL..big laugh, right?? Freaking ignorant if you ask me...maybe Christians need to get a sensitivity chip in their brains?? You know, to perfect them??
Average family on S-CHIP makes around 40,000 -
Most states cover a family of 4 making around $40,000 per year. I know in Montana you have to make even less than that to qualify for S-CHIP, so although the $80,000 obviously upsets you greatly, it is not the norm, but the exception.
The only reason I bring up the abortion issue (which I have mixed feelings about myself and will not get into in this topic) is because I think if that baby is born that baby deserves healthcare. Simple as that. I don't see any hypocrisy in that statement, but I'm sure you will since you seem to find something wrong with every one of my arguments.
The cost of S-CHIP for an entire year equals
Iraq = $333 million per day. S-CHIP = $19 million per day. Hmm, if we can "find" money for one, don't you think we can find money for the other. Again, I ask, "What would Jesus do?" What would the leaders of any religion recommend? I think they would recommend taking care of our most innocent souls.
The cigarette tax would go a long way in covering the program, but I think our government could come up with money to fund the rest.
I am interested in this
What is a little definition? And how is your definition a big definition. Can you provide sources for this categorization?
I am still waiting for the sources of the claim that a liberal poster(s) has stalked a conservative poster(s) at some point. I find this very very intriguing and eagerly await the details!!!
If you are interested, there is more...
on this on the America's Most Wanted website with some more detail. It does not appear to be biased one way or the other...and there is some food for thought there. They seem to be leaning more toward what I said...that the agents should have been reprimanded but the sentence appears pretty harsh. One of the agents has since been beaten up in prison, AMW contends, by other inmates who recognized him from the show (Hispanics yelling kill the border agent) while they beat him up. I did not try to confirm that part of it. At any rate...I do not think, after reading all of this, it would be wrong for the White House to pardon these two men, even if that pardon included removing them as border patrol agents, if that is what it took. Point being...at most border situations, it is going to be the guards and the illegals and no one else...so there does need to be accountability for border patrol agents...and frankly, illegals, I still say, should have NO legal standing in this country and should understand that if they cross illegally. That does not mean that border patrol should have carte blanche to shoot people, that is not what I am saying. THEY need to be accountable to our legal system. However, the illegals should have no standing and should realize that when they come here illegaly. I know that there are many on the liberal side, and perhaps even on the RINO side but I have not heard of any... who disagree with that and think they should have the same rights as US citizens. I disagree with that strongly.
Ok....certainly your right! Was interested...
in what the kinda judgmental poster who was horrified that she was pregnant and saying that the family had no values because of that...if that poster thought abortion would have been better. Frankly, the fact that the girl elected to marry the father and have the child shows me that her family values are in place. To save the child is also a choice, and I think she made the right one.
Thanks for your answer!
For anyone who is interested...
http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm
I had no idea there was this much stuff out there.
very interested--thank you! nm
x
Thanks, but no thanks. I'm more interested in
x
Since you are so interested, ...(sm)
I actually did do your research for you, just not in this thread. Try looking under the next thread up about credible sources. That was the point -- the fact that you could not say what you meant, you just spouted out some crap you heard on TV, and then got mad because someone called you on it. Grow up.
P.S. Is this something the ACLU would be interested in?
Thanks again.
I have to say, honestly, I am just not interested.
That is my true feeling on the matter. I am absolutely zero vested in conspiracy theories or ascribing blame. Blame will not bring back anyone and at the same time, I feel there was a long long line of failures leading up to 9/11 that started way before President Bush and continued through many presidencies. I hope, no matter what, in the end they can have peace of mind. I am sure it has to be hard for them.
Interested in knowing...sm
Not to rehash the debate but was it Stephen or another poster who supposedly made threats against the president. I missed that.
the nation really isn't interested
It's just a device used by the neocons to keep the attention of the stifled. They know that the repressed loonies in the county slobber over anything pertaining to sex. Just look at O'Reilly. Nearly every night he has some story about prostitutes, strip clubs, girls gone wild -- he is complaining how horrible it is, yet they always have tapes behind him of half-naked coeds grinding away. If it is so horrible, must we see the tapes over and over?
I'm sure you would have missed it since all you are interested in sm
is your own agenda. You can't even listen to anyone else's point of view and all you can respond with is sarcasm.
For those interested.....here is the blog
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html
I am learning too but interested in
even-sided with obama and dodd's names all over the place?
Not really interested in talking to you. nm
x
What it tells me is that you are interested in
naysaying, innuendo, division, polarization and the like. Sam, what matters to most of us savoring this incredible moment in our history is not what happened in the past. In this way, even the shrub gets a get out of jail card. My interest lies in the future and I see nothing suspicious or scary about Obama despite your best efforts after all these months. I also am not interested in preaching to the choir from either side. What I think matters now is that we try our best to get past this election and on with the business of uniting ourselves behind our leadership and start tackling the very difficult challenges we face on so many fronts. The economy is an equal opportunity crisis. Addressing global warming, the environment and alternative energy offers the promise of benefit for us all, and peace on earth is a goal that we share with the peoples of the world. Those matter to me. Not the implied, possible nefarious ties Rahm Emanuel may or may not have with the boogey man.
but she did not say she is not - I am not worried - just interested - nm
x
The world is interested because -
America has always been a leader in the world and looked up to until the last few years. I don't believe there is anything sinister going on because the world is excited. So much of what goes on in the world revolved around the US for so long. Nobody used to care that everyone looked to us for guidance - what is the problem with it now? I for one am glad that people are beginning to look at us as leaders again and not with the contempt and disdain that they have been feeling!
Another one I would be interested in vetting is
Tom Tancredo of Colorado.
Here's something interested we heard
Last night we were watching the movie Demolition Man. Don't know if you've ever seen it. Sylvester Stallone goes in cryostasis and 70 or so years later he's brought out to hunt down a killer (Wesley Snipes). Anyway...here's what's interesting. He's riding in the car with Sandra Bullock and she tells him Schwartenneger was president. He said something about him being foreign born and she made mention that because he was so popular they changed the ammendment.
DH & I looked at each other and said isn't that interesting.
So pretty much you are interested in
throwing out smears that you are not willing to back up with facts, citations or examples and baiting other posters. You also don't seem to care how ignorant you sound, given the fact that it is patently clear you don't have a clue as to the meaning of racism or bigotry. You also seem quite unwilling to engage in any meaningful debate on the so-called pot-shot issues you fire off in your drive-bys. To top it all off, so far you have shown yourself to have a fairly juvenile, shallow, superficial and limited form of thinking.
Should you decide to step up to the plate and actually post something of substance you are willing to exercise some intellect over, I'll be more than happy to accommodate. In the meantime, I'd rather use my time more productively reading up on the latest news.
So pretty much you are interested in
throwing out smears that you are not willing to back up with facts, citations or examples and baiting other posters. You also don't seem to care how ignorant you sound, given the fact that it is patently clear you don't have a clue as to the meaning of racism or bigotry. You also seem quite unwilling to engage in any meaningful debate on the so-called pot-shot issues you fire off in your drive-bys. To top it all off, so far you have shown yourself to have a fairly juvenile, shallow, superficial and limited form of thinking.
Should you decide to step up to the plate and actually post something of substance you are willing to exercise some intellect over, I'll be more than happy to accommodate. In the meantime, I'd rather use my time more productively reading up on the latest news.
I was more interested in the idea that...(sm)
Alaska is getting hit financially because of the drop in the cost of oil, and yet Palin seems to think this is a perfect time to basically give herself a whopping 20% raise. Sounds some CEOs that I've heard of recently.
You are such a child, interested only in
sake. Do you know what leftie means?
No, I was more interested in what our President had to say
And it was refreshing to here an intelligent, thoughtful speech.
No doubt, that's all he would be interested in doing.
x
You might be interested to know this is the country
Honest to gorblimey, you need to try to blow some of those liberal cobwebs out of your cranium.
Not even interested in the architects of the 9/11 disaster. sm
They either have more lucrative interests in Iraq or are just bent on ridding it of Saddam or all of the above (too much history there), and we all know good and well there were no jihadist extremist there before America invaded that country, so this so-called War on Terror in Iraq was INVENTED.
I am sure the troops in Afghanistan would be interested to know they are not there.
,
I'm really not interested in arguing the point...sm
Of who is worst because you are right they all were wrong. I just don't understand why when someone does something wrong people expect you to not say anything about it because *others* have committed similar crimes in the past and got away with it. And??
I understand being upset about Studd and even Clinton if you feel that strongly about it, but don't expect business as usual when a scandal like this hits the fan. People are going to talk about it. 23 years ago when Studd was having his affair I was in grade school so excuse me for first not knowing what you were talking about (until I researched it) and second not seeing the relevance of it in the case of Foley. I'm sure there was outrage for what Studd did too. Now upon learning about Studd and his (I can't say that here), I even said I do not know how or why the people continued to vote him in and yeah he should have had the decency to step down. Sorry you think I'm being partisan - NO far from it. I am always disgusted with people who prey on children, birth to the day before they turn 18, sexually.
Oh and don't expect me or anyone else to think Foley is some stand up type of guy because he stepped down AFTER GETTING CAUGHT, mind you. Had he not been caught he would still be IM'ing children.
Yeah Clinton was wrong for lying under oath. He should have told the truth and apologized *to his wife*. It's not like it is illegal to have an extramarital affair.
Like you said, they are all morally wrong, but I tend to be more disgusted with child predators. It doesn't matter if you agree with me (there are plenty of people who do). We'll just have to agree to disagree.
One point you didn't bring up was Foley's job responsibility. That makes it a little more eerie. Are people not supposed to be disappointed that this is who we have in charge of protecting our children?
Anyone interested in the candidates houses? SM
On the www.apartmentherapy website, they feature the candidates homes. I love that site. Anway...spoiler alert, if anyone cares.
________________________________
What I found interesting is Mitt Romney lives in a comptemporary home on the water, which is pictured next to Barack Obama's conservative georgian style home.
OK, not of vital interest, I just love looking at homes. 
MasonD, If you are really interested in the truth...
and not bash posting, take a little look at the internet...google Clinton Iraq WMD and see what you get. Clinton thought there were WMD during his administration too. Don't you remember him getting on the TV and telling us all how Iraq had WMD and if they did not comply with the UN and let the inspectors in we might have to use force? I bet I could find that on You Tube or someplace. The CIA director at that time was George Tenet. When Bush was elected, he did not fire Tenet, he kept him on (BAD mistake in hindsight I would say). Tenet told the Congress and everyone else (now this is the head of the CIA mind you, left over from Clinton's Administration) that it was a slam dunk that Iraq had WMD. Soooo...if it is a lie it was one that started during the Clinton administration. So St. Bill believed it too. Even though he seems to have amnesia regarding that fact until a news show confronted him with it. And then it was the stuttering and stammering and "yes I believed it then...but I don't believe it now." Yeah right. Nothing changed between now and then...sheesh. Had that deer in the headlights I did not have sex with that woman MS Lewinsky look.
It really is just amazing to me that you folks cannot see any of the faults in Democrats but EVERY fault in Republicans...lol.
Here are ALL the figures in case anyone is interested...
First---100% of southern Republicans...consisted of ONE senator. When one senator votes against something, yeah, that is 100%. Sheesh. Take a look at ALL the figures.
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X at the United States Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill.Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself. The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964.
Shortly thereafter, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, We have lost the South for a generation.[2]
[edit] Vote totals
Totals are in "Yes-No" format:
The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)
[edit] By party
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 153-96 (64%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
[edit] By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
Yes, I agree that things change. And the Democratic party got interested in African Americans AFTER they got the vote. Coincidence? I think not.
Not to fear. The Chinese are interested in...
...purchasing these American icons. More selling out of America, right under our noses.
Thank you, Congress. 
Chinese Automakers May Buy GM and Chrysler
By Bertel Schmitt
November 18, 2008 -
Chinese carmakers SAIC and Dongfeng have plans to acquire GM and Chrysler, China's 21st Century Business Herald reports today. [A National Enquirer the paper is not. It is one of China's leading business newspapers, with a daily readership over three million.] The paper cites a senior official of China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology–– the state regulator of China's auto industry–– who dropped the hint that "the auto manufacturing giants in China, such as Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) and Dongfeng Motor Corporation, have the capability and intention to buy some assets of the two crisis-plagued American automakers." These hints are very often followed with quick action in the Middle Kingdom. The hints were dropped just a few days after the same Chinese government gave its auto makers the go-ahead to invest abroad. And why would they do that?
A take-over of a large overseas auto maker would fit perfectly into China's plans. As reported before, China has realized that its export chances are slim without unfettered access to foreign technology. The brand cachet of Chinese cars abroad is, shall we say, challenged. The Chinese could easily export Made-in-China VWs, Toyotas, Buicks. If their joint venture partner would let them. The solution: Buy the joint venture partner. Especially, when he's in deep trouble.
At current market valuations (GM is worth less than Mattel) the Chinese government can afford to buy GM with petty cash. Even a hundred billion $ would barely dent China's more than $2t in currency reserves. For nobody in the world would buying GM and (while they are at it) Chrysler make more sense than for the Chinese. Overlap? What overlap? They would gain instant access to the world's markets with accepted brands, and proven technology.
21st Century Business Herald, obviously with input from higher-up, writes that Chinese industry must change and upgrade. China wants their factories to change from low-value-added manufacturing to technically innovative and financially-sound high-value-add industries. Says the paper: "It would be much easier now for strong Chinese automakers to go global by acquiring some assets of their U.S. counterparts in times of crisis."
Deloitte & Touche sees a trend: "Chinese automakers can start with buying out the OEM projects and Chinese ventures of some global carmakers such as GM and Chrysler."
The Chinese appear to have bigger plans than an accounting firm can imagine. 21st Century Business Herald acts and writes as if its already a done deal, and the beginning of more to come. "In the coming two years China is likely to see a few of its large Chinese automakers and other manufacturing enterprises set a precedent for achieving globalization by acquiring global companies, just like SAIC or Dongfeng's possible acquisition of troubled GM or Chrysler."
Just in case you missed it, the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) is China's largest auto manufacturer. In 1984, the company entered a joint venture with Volkswagen. A decade later, SAIC entered a joint venture with General Motors. In 2007, SAIC bought the Nanjing Automobile Corporation, which had acquired British MG Rover in 2005.
Dongfeng Motor Corporation is a public company, although 70 percent of their shares are reported to be in government hands. They also are one of China's Big Three. The company has numerous joint venture partners, such as Nissan, Peugeot-Citroen, Honda, and Kia. Dongfeng (which means "East Wind") was founded at the behest of Mao Zedong himself in 1968.
|
