nvdaily.com link to home page

Traffic | Weather | Mobile Edition
Archives | Subscribe

Opinion arrow Letters to the Editor

| 0 | 70 Comments

Letter to the Editor: Notice for the POTUS - It's the economy and we're not stupid


Editor:

President Obama remains unyielding about his goal to continue the growth of government even as the economy continues to wither and American citizens continue to suffer the results of a stagnant job market. His quest to expand the size and impact of the federal government apparently overrides his ability to see the urgent need for a new goal to revive America's economy. This president should be on notice - it doesn't take a genius to recognize the results of economic failure.

Obamacare is a good example of attempts to expand the government. Unless this maze of bureaucratic overreach and confusion is repealed, the Feds will control another 17 percent of America's economy. This bill adds 21 new taxes which amount to over $657 billion additional tax dollars over 10 years, the largest tax increase in American history. Also lurking within the 2,500 pages of this bill are 20,000 new laws to add to the confusion. And contrary to the promises that President Obama made when he was campaigning for Obamacare, premiums will go up.

At a July 13 campaign in Roanoke, President Obama told a crowd that if you have a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen and that somebody else he was referring to was the federal government. Those few words reveal the true underlying identity of this president, who believes that all things good begin with the inspiration of the federal government. With home ownership the lowest in history, government dependance the highest in history, retail sales down for the third month in a row, the gross domestic product down to 1.4 percent, unemployment at 8.2 percent, the national debt at nearly $16 trillion and the deficit increasing at the rate of $4 billion dollars per day, the course for this country has been dialed in and this POTUS appears unable or unwilling to make course corrections. Signs of economic failure were obvious and the president was oblivious. It is and has been about the economy and that's not a tough call. Four more years of this president would be America's misfortune.

Leroy Donald, Stephens City


70 Comments



Obama came into this mess, thanks to the great George W. Bush and "friends". It's hard to understand how putting the Republicans back in the White House is going to fix the problem. They have done nothing but block every effort this president has made.

President Obama isn't perfect but please TRY to think: What does Romney say? How will he turn the economy around? Putting this rich cat in charge certainly isn't the answer.

Americans are constantly divided over petty stuff from both parties: there's this "sport's mentality" about winning and losing. Our government has been bought by Corporations and money is the name of the game. And Americans are losing!

All we can do is choose between the lesser of two evils. I wish we had other options, but they've got us where they want us. We don't need anymore wars! We don't need anymore bail-outs! We do need to make these crooks accountable but that's not going to happen anytime soon. Going backward isn't the answer either.

“Our government has been bought by Corporations and money is the name of the game. And Americans are losing!” – Agreed. So what are we going to do to reduce the government?

“Obamacare is a good example of attempts to expand the government.”

“Those few words reveal the true underlying identity of this president, who believes that all things good begin with the inspiration of the federal government.”

Which is the lesser of two evils?

There will be a third candidate on the ballot, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. If everyone is so dissatisfied with our current system, why don’t they take a look at another instead of immediately dismissing it? I don’t know much about him or his policies, I’m just saying maybe there is another way.

"Most Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal," he said. "I'm advocating a balanced budget. But along with that, look, there should be gay marriage equality, a woman should have the right to choose, let's not build a fence across the border. Let's legalize marijuana." ~ Former New Mexico GOP Gov. Gary Johnson, July 23, 2012

He certainly would have the backing of the powerful Libertarians, the Koch Brothers. David Koch was the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate in the 1980 presidential election. The Clark–Koch ticket promising to abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve Board, welfare, minimum-wage laws, corporate taxes, all price supports and subsidies for agriculture and business, and U.S. Federal agencies including the SEC, EPA, ICC, FTC, OSHA, FBI, CIA, and DOE. The ticket proposed legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide. The ticket received 921,128 votes, 1.06% of the total nationwide vote.

Bottom line, however, does he still have time to get on the presidential ballot? I thought the deadline in some states was already closed.

Here is an article from Forbes that shows that Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Thank you for the Forbes article. Another interesting article.....

The law directs insurance companies to send rebates to policyholders each year when the companies spend more than 15 or 20 percent of people's premiums (depending on the size of the insurance pool) on administration, profits and executive bonuses rather than medical care. That means that this summer, some 115,000 Arkansans who have individual or employer insurance will get about $7.8 million in rebates for insurer overcharges in 2011. Most of them will cash the checks not knowing it resulted from the Affordable Care Act, and they will go on cursing Obamacare and the Supreme Court.

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/republicans-reject-own-health-care-plan/Content?oid=2321954

Well, it depends on what you believe is more important, the actual amount spent or the amount spent versus the revenues brought in. Obama’s spending as a share of GDP is about 24%, Bush average was about 20.5%. That’s giving Bush the debated 2009 year. However – who voted for the bail-out? I happen to believe in living within your income.

A small company gets a $450 refund on their insurance with the note “it likely is subject to the federal employee retirement income security act of 1974 (ERISA). Under ERISA, the employer or the administrator of the group health plan may have fiduciary responsibilities regarding use of the medical loss ratio rebates. Some or all of the rebate may be an asset of the plan, which must be used for the benefit of the employees covered by the policy. “ So how much do they now have to spend on an accountant to make sure they comply with the government regulation?

Diane,
Obama came into this mess, thanks to the great George W. Bush and "friends". Why do I constantly hear this incorrect talking point from friends of Barack? Can I ask you, were you asleep during the Bush years? Were you watching anything and digesting it that went on behind the scenes such as in the senate and house? With what I know about the history of what happened, by who and when during the Bush presidency, I think you are mis-informed. You will certainly believe that you are right with that information and no one will change your mind. I would ask you though to keep an open mind, but it is your right to believe what you wish, right or wrong. Education is a hard attribute to sell these days especially when it involves history and goes against the main stream. I was reading through another local newspaper weeks ago and came upon an article that was interesting. I will post it for you so you can read what I saw. Here it is:
Here’s why Bush was so bad at the end of his term
To the Editor: Cumberland Times-News
Some people aren’t aware of all of this. Don’t just skim over this, please read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out.

The day the Democrats took over was not Jan. 22, it was actually Jan. 3, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault,” think about this: Jan. 3 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.
At the time:
The Dow Jones closed at 12,621.77. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5 percent. The unemployment rate was 4.6 percent.
George Bush’s economic policies set a record of 52 straight months of job growth.
Remember the day:
Jan. 3, 2007, was the day Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over The Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? Banking and financial services!
Unemployment: to this crisis by (among many other things) dumping $5 to 6 trillion of toxic loans on the economy from Your Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiascoes!
Bush asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie and Freddie, starting in 2001, because it was financially risky for the U.S. economy.
And who took the third highest pay-off from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Obama.
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? Obama and the Democrat Congress.
So when someone tries to blame Bush, remember Jan. 3, 2007…. the day the Democrats took over.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 and 2009 as well as 2010 and 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as president to complete 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.
After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell what Obama is saying is, “I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since Jan. 20, 2008.
Paul Williams
Cumberland

Diane, things that you are told by people with skewed agenda's are not always correct. You may wish to come back and just say, 'this is b.s." and that is your right. That would be the typical way to end this. I read your article and I think you are better than that. My challenge to you dear should you wish to accept this assignment is to look up and find any verifiable source that proves just one piece of this article incorrect. I would love to see it. I can not find any myself. I will check back to see if you find any corrections in this small part of history. That would be an education for me also. With that being said I do agree with the rest of your post except that we do not need the "spender in chief" back for four more. If that occurs our economy is sunk. Thanx 4 yur time...

"I happen to believe in living within your income."

In total agreement; however, not all are as lucky as we to be able to do that for a variety of reasons.

The TARP is a program of the USG to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis. Bush authorized expenditures of $700 billion, but the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. Why did GWB do that?

Bush announces $17.4 billion auto bailout. President George W. Bush stepped in Friday to keep America's auto industry afloat, announcing a $17.4 billion bailout for GM and Chrysler, with the terms of the loans requiring that the firms radically restructure and show they can become profitable soon. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html

Anyone who actually believes the president can pull us out of this mess in such a short time is very, very naive. If turning around a national financial crisis were that easy, why is Greece, Italy and Spain having such a financial crisis?

Seems to be an awful lot of Republican types taking to the print media posting guest op-eds chock-a-block full with Romney propaganda in an attempt to control the print conversation to favor Romney's better arguments. First it was Bill Holtzman firing off a ghost written piece of fluff to a large number of Virginia newspapers and now the NVD is flooded with Republican leaning op-eds. Not so strange when considering Virginia is an important swing state in the election.

Sorry Sam, your reader comment from some unknown citizen with unknown credentials in Cumberland Maryland put my glass eye to sleep. Do you have the web URL you could post so we can take a look see for ourselves? I just want to see for myself this is not another example of someone like far right wing conservative Bill Holtzman sending off a rant letter to a dozen newspapers promoting the Mitt Romney agenda. Speaking of Mitt Romney.....

So, if Mitt Romney has nothing to hide, where are his tax returns for the past dozen years? Is it true the money to launch Bain Capital came from sources using Panama shell corporations to funnel money from unknown investors into Romneys company?

“In total agreement; however, not all are as lucky as we to be able to do that for a variety of reasons.”
I don’t think luck has a lot to do with it as much as poor choices. Sure there are stories of bad things happening to good people but basically the housing mortgage crisis was because people over-borrowed. They didn’t live within their means. People took out mortgages that they could barely afford others drew out equity on their homes thinking the value would always go up, and spent it on – stuff. Was this the borrower’s fault or the bank’s fault? One could argue both.
As far as bail-outs, TARP, etc. we could continue to debate whether it was democrats or republicans forever. It was government. So why would we want more?
“If turning around a national financial crisis were that easy, why is Greece, Italy and Spain having such a financial crisis? “ – Because they spent too much in government programs.

I'mdebtfree, the blame for the housing crisis is due to not only some who did buy houses they could not afford, but also to far too many lenders who were more than willing to give mortgages to buyers they knew were not qualified. I remember knowing home buyers at that time who were amazed that their financial qualifications were barely checked into!

And I agree with Jane----living within your means is good but not everyone is that fortunate in today's world. We can argue all day about whether someone should have made the right choice when they were young to further their education in order to have a better paying job, but the fact is just in this area alone, there are many going to work every single day but at minimum wage they are barely able to keep their head above water. There was a time years ago when a person who got out of high school and for what ever reason could not or made the choice to not go on to further education but was able to get a job at a place like Aileen or Wrangler or Shenandoah Knitting and have a pretty decent life.

I also agree with Jane that anyone who thinks that the president and administration was able to turn this mess, the worst since the Great Depression, around in three years is very naive. I do agree with the Democrats that increasing taxes on the very wealthy, who can well afford it and were given big breaks 10 years ago with the Bush tax cuts, along with making cuts that will NOT hurt those in the middle class and those in poverty, is the best way to climb out of the mess. I can not understand for the life of me, why anyone would find problems with that------other than some of the extremely wealthy. And even many of them, i.e. Warren Buffet, are more than willing to pay a little more.

Ok, I’m trying to understand. So the “very wealthy” who can well afford it and have the ability to pay should give to those who have a need by way of the government? You would like more government programs? You would like the “very wealthy” to pay more taxes so the government can take it and come up with another program to give it to who? What amount should the “very wealthy” pay? What is “very wealthy”? Who should it go to and why?

”I remember knowing home buyers at that time who were amazed that their financial qualifications were barely checked into!” Exactly, they knew they shouldn’t have been going that far in debt but they choose to do it anyway.

If I am reading you correctly you are saying whenever taxes are collected from the super rich, ALL of those funds, every last stinking dime, immediately go straight into benefits paid directly to poor people... forget about national defense, infrastructure maintenance, and buying new politicians to cater to your every whim and fancy?

Forgive me for mentioning the unmentionable, but your halo of selfishness is on a bit crooked today. I recognize blue ribbon advice originating from phony financial advisors when I hear it.

(here insert gurgling throat clearing sounds)......

Patooie.

Does debt free also mean you own a pot to pee in and a window to throw it out? Impressive!!!

ROFLMAO

Joe,
I certainly understand, read but verify. Here is the URL for the article written by Mr. Williams, not by me.

http://times-news.com/letters2/x471600843/Here-s-why-Bush-was-so-bad-at-the-end-of-his-term

Also, not a republican type. I refuse to live and vote by a party line because someone tells me that I will. I will not be a puppet and dance to someone elses music. As you know sometimes it is a fine dance as you have to go back and forth to find the right candidate that will do the least amount of damage as compared to the other choice. Does not really mean that I like or agree with either candidate. Hey, the deal with Romney not releasing his 1040's, don't know? I will tell you one thing though that I would like to see them. Anyone that rich, there has to be a clue there somewhere as to how the rest of us can do it. Hey, he did it, didn't he. I say, show em yur 40's Mitt. Did not read much on the launch money. That could very well be true? Don't know. Sure doe's look shady though. On the flip side, and I know I will catch it on this one but I will throw it out there anyway just because. Sorta seems like someone we know who in a 1991 biography release of his personal history information stated as fact that he was born in kenya? Hummmmm. Wowww. Say what you want and I hear the liberal left name callers already,'birther alert". But when asked to release his BC. he spent millions blocking it and finally caved to pressure two years later? I smell it and if it stinks, then brother, it stinks. I refuse to call it something else just because someone else dosen't like it. You see, I am sorta of a read "but" verify guy too. Better cut this diatribe short for you. I know the last one was lengthy. Sorry about that. Thanx Joe, take care...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

First, anyone who has not done research on the causes leading up to our recession should start there, and then dissect and research what they would like more information on, on their own.

My own personal view, the primary cause is deregulation of the financial and banking industries brought about by BOTH parties. We, as in "we the consumers" DO need regulations and protection from capitalism run a muck. Now before someone starts, I am NOT anti-capitalist. But I am realistic. While once in a while there will be that odd ball company that puts its customers above the bottom line. Most are purely driven by the bottom line and will do whatever necessary to continue to increase said bottom line.

Did people get loans they knew they couldn't afford? Absolutely. But I don't blame the consumers for taking their dreams when offered on a silver plate. It was the bankers/lenders RESPONSIBILITY to say no. To say, I'm sorry, you cant afford the balloon payment. Its was their RESPONSIBILITY to tell the consumers that while they may afford the payments for the first couple years, when their interest rates adjust, they will no longer afford it. That is WHY we need regulation, because big business left on its own will only do whatever necessary to make money. Its not rocket science, you don't need 15 degrees in economics to understand that.

So on that front, your choice at the ballot box is how much do you trust business to regulate itself? Looking at how well they regulated themselves leading up to the crisis, you should know the answer. Do you vote to at least attempt to protect the consumer, or do you vote to protect big business?

Birth records and tax returns....birthers do crack me up tbh. Is the State of Hawaii and the federal government lying or did a publisher make a book slightly more poignant?, again a question each voter must ask themselves. I'm going to believe it sold a better story.

Tax records. I don't need to see. I already know how small a percentage he paid in taxes, if any with loopholes and write offs. The question then becomes how much each voter values themselves. Is it right that "Joe" pays 18% of his income in taxes, while Mitt pays 10%? Should it matter that Mitt's 10% is in the millions, while Joe's 18% is a couple thousand? To this voter, no. Its not about where the money is going after taxes are paid. Its about telling me that Mitt is better than Joe and deserves to hand over a SMALLER OVERALL PERCENTAGE because he happens to have more money. Its "class warfare" to have a system like that in the first place, but some would have you believe its class warfare to stand up and say, "having money doesn't afford you special benefits." We can't even begin to fix government spending until we fix the tax code.

And the end of the day, I wish every voter would trace back the current issues to where they started, what the causes were and then vote for the candidate they believe is trying to ensure we do not repeat the same mistakes. The mistakes were already made, the damage done, its how we proceed. Stop with the R-said, D-said, and do a little homework.

“While once in a while there will be that odd ball company that puts its customers above the bottom line. Most are purely driven by the bottom line and will do whatever necessary to continue to increase said bottom line.” – Wow, I am completely appalled by that statement. The customers ARE the bottom line. You obviously don’t work in business. Without satisfied customers for a company’s goods or services they no longer have a business. If you don’t like the way you are treated by a company – do not trade with them.

“But I don't blame the consumers for taking their dreams when offered on a silver plate.” But wasn’t that greedy on their part?

“It was the bankers/lenders RESPONSIBILITY to say no.” – Well I guess that is what Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac should have done. – If you continue to read the Wikipedia article you will find it is government manipulation that caused this mess.


“And the end of the day, I wish every voter would trace back the current issues to where they started” – Please do.

Excellent article (and enough blame to go around)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/26/road-ruin-recession-individuals-economy

Who's to blame: Alan Greenspan, Mervyn King, Bill Clinton, Gordon Brown, George W Bush, Senator Phil Gramm, Wall Street/Bankers, Others

No one paid an heed to these people:

Professor Nouriel Roubini
Described by the New York Times as Dr Doom, the economist from New York University was warning that financial crisis was on the way in 2006, when he told economists at the IMF that the US would face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, oil shock and a deep recession.

He remains a pessimist. He predicted last week that losses in the US financial system could hit $3.6tn before the credit crunch ends - which, he said, means the entire US banking system is in effect bankrupt. After last year's bail-outs and nationalisations, he famously described George Bush, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke as "a troika of Bolsheviks who turned the USA into the United Socialist State Republic of America".

Warren Buffett, billionaire investor
Dubbed the Sage of Omaha, Buffett had long warned about the dangers of dodgy derivatives that no one understood and said often that Wall Street's finest were grossly overpaid. In his annual letter to shareholders in 2003, he compared complex derivative contracts to hell: "Easy to enter and almost impossible to exit." On an optimistic note, Buffett wrote in October that he had begun buying shares on the US stockmarket again, suggesting the worst of the credit crunch might be over. Now is a great time to "buy a slice of America's future at a marked-down price", he said.

George Soros, speculator
The billionaire financier, philanthropist and backer of the Democrats told an audience in Singapore in January 2006 that stockmarkets were at their peak, and that the US and global economies should brace themselves for a recession and a possible "hard landing". He also warned of "a gigantic real estate bubble" inflated by reckless lenders, encouraging homeowners to remortgage and offering interest-only deals. Earlier this year Soros described a 25-year "super bubble" that is bursting, blaming unfathomable financial instruments, deregulation and globalisation. He has since characterised the financial crisis as the worst since the Great Depression.


I'mdebtfree, This one's for you.....

There's no escaping the fact: politicians might have teed up the financial system and failed to police it properly and Wall Street's greedy bankers might have got carried away with the riches they could generate, but if millions of Americans had just realised they were borrowing more than they could repay then we would not be in this mess. The British public got just as carried away. We are the credit junkies of Europe and many of our problems could easily have been avoided if we had been more sensible and just said no.

I'm not as good at researching stuff like others on this website, so I'll just do the best I can and let the chips fall where they may. I'll let others dissect the numerous falsehoods being drummed up by 'debtfree' who is turning out to be a champion fibber and history editor.

Occams Razor - The simplest answers have the greatest probability of being correct.

Well, Sam, it's just great that the centerpiece of your rant was authored by a nondescript citizen from an off the beaten path podunk town in Maryland who may think he is the tooth fairy for all I know. Can you provide us with his curriculum vitae or why his information is not round-file material?

More troubling is your claim to "read, but verify" and then not do your due diligence before opining Obama was not born in Hawaii. There is a plethora of credible, unbiased information on Obamas place of birth, the conspiracies that deny Hawaii as his birthplace, and other yellow journalism written to falsely discredit. Are you admitting to accepting without question everything sticking to the wall after the warm smelly stuff has exited the fan? Just one question for your response might illustrate your gullibility; What makes you believe Obama spent millions blocking the release of his birth certificate?

When providing credible news reporting references who is to be believed; one of the reputable major news agency (NBC - CBS - ABC - Associated Press - Reuters - Newsweek - Time ) or one of the well known partisan sources (Fox News - MSNBC - Rupert Murdoch News - Rush Limbaugh - or one of the hundreds of Koch Brothers supported grist mills )

Personally, I have great confidence in Jon Stewart from The Daily Show.

Who vouches the authenticity of the Obama birth certificate? State of Hawaii.

Autobiography - a history of a person's life written or told by that person.
Barack Obama's autobiography is titled "Dreams From My Father"

What is the source of the Kenya birthplace for Obama?
'Born in Kenya': Obama's Literary Agent Misidentified His Birthplace in 1991.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566
Who vouches the authenticity of an Obama birth in Kenya? Nobody, including Rush Limbaugh produces any proof.

What about that paragon of trustworthiness, the recently deceased purveyor of slime, Andrew Brietbart? No less a bastion of conspiracy theories than "The Western Journalism Center" (no address, no phone number, makes claims it "trains" journalist to become investigative reporters) used Brietbarts hogwash as the centerpiece for yet another Kenyan conspiracy theory on its website, claiming Obama "must have" approved the agents mistake.

When all is said and done, not one solid piece of evidence has ever been produced that unimpeachably provides any proof of Kenyan birth. There has been lost and lots of furtive whispers, shadowy allegations, and insinuations galore, but not one piece of credible information has ever been produced.... just the sort of stuff that makes for a good conspiracy theory and proof flying saucer UFO's abduct people who are in desperate need of anal probing.

Biography - a written account of another person's life.
Dozens of biographies exist, most written by Republicans with a political agenda.
Rush Limbaugh promises a pot of gold but then flounders in a cesspool of his own creation when he fails to deliver the goods:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/06/19/book_reveals_lies_in_obama_autobiography

The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.

"No one paid an heed to these people"

Meant 'any' vice 'an'....sorry.

Small businesses bottom line may be their customers, but if you think the same applies to big business you are naive. As long as they can continue to make money they do not care. Walmart is a prime example. I don't shop there because they put small businesses out of business. They sell cheaply made products from other countries and treat their employees like crap. So how come Walmart hasn't changed its business practices? Because for every one customer like me, there is a million more walking in each day dumb enough to contribute to them. When employees get a bonus equal to a days work, and then get a days work taken off the schedule so the company can compensate for the "bonus", they should just be happy they have a job right? Oh wait, I know its because Wal-Mart barely makes overhead and paying a bonus might bankrupt them?

The average person knows NOTHING about loans until they get one. When "Joe and Sally" who have been married for 2 years, both working, been saving to buy their first home and start a family walk into the bank to ask what their options are and if they have enough money, its the Bankers JOB to tell them if they are able or not. Would you blame the 16 year old who failed his drivers test, yet the DMV gave him a license anyway for the wreck he just had, or would you blame the DMV for knowing he failed but giving him license anyway? With your train of thought on responsibility, can I borrow 100,000.00? I can pay it back, just because I say I can. When I dont pay it back, Don't worry, you wont be responsible for giving it to me, it will be my fault for being greedy.

Fannie and Freddy..So they were the only ones handing out irresponsible loans??? They are the sole blame for the crisis? Nevermind the things like AMTPA of 82 that even made these scenarios possible...or the failure of any Congress from the 90s to crisis point, to set the regulations that would prevent crisis. Its easier just blame Fannie and Freddy.

You missed the ENTIRE point, everyone should research EVERYTHING that led up to this. THEN you decide who is trying to not repeat the past mistakes. It really doesn't matter who is to blame for getting us here, its understanding HOW we got here, and making sure it doesn't continue/happen again.


This guy who calls himself "I'mdebtfree" more and more sounds like he does not understand all he knows about money. This headline caught my attention and indicates our local "expert" doesn't know what he's talking about.

Budget office: Obama's health law reduces deficit

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2012-07-24-Health%20Care%20Overhaul-Costs/id-603172a6d6a243d88a7f852c94ccffcf

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's health care overhaul will shrink rather than increase the nation's huge federal deficits over the next decade, Congress' nonpartisan budget scorekeepers said Tuesday, supporting Obama's contention in a major election-year dispute with Republicans.

About 3 million fewer uninsured people will gain health coverage because of last month's Supreme Court ruling granting states more leeway, and that will cut the federal costs by $84 billion, the Congressional Budget Office said in the biggest changes from earlier estimates.

Republicans have insisted that "Obamacare" will actually raise deficits — by "trillions," according to presidential candidate Mitt Romney. But that's not so, the budget office said.

The office gave no updated estimate for total deficit reductions from the law, approved by Congress and signed by Obama in 2010. But it did estimate that Republican legislation to repeal the overhaul — passed recently by the House — would itself boost the deficit by $109 billion from 2013 to 2022.

"Repealing the (health care law) will lead to an increase in budget deficits over the coming decade, though a smaller one than previously reported," budget office director Douglas Elmendorf said in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The law's mix of spending cuts and tax increases would more than offset new spending to cover uninsured people, Elmendorf explained.

Tuesday's budget projections were the first since the Supreme Court upheld most of the law last month but gave states the option of rejecting a planned expansion of Medicaid for their low-income residents. As a consequence, the budget office said the law will cover fewer uninsured people.

Thirty million uninsured people will be covered by 2022, or about 3 million fewer than projected this spring before the court ruling, the report said.

As a result, taxpayers will save about $84 billion from 2012 to 2022. That brings the total cost of expanding coverage down to $1.2 trillion, from about $1.3 trillion in the previous estimate.

The Congressional Budget Office has consistently projected that Obama's overhaul will reduce the deficit, although previous estimates aren't strictly comparable with Tuesday's report because of changes in the law and other factors.

At the time it was approved in 2010, CBO estimated the law would reduce the deficit by $143 billion from 2010 to 2019. And CBO estimated that last year's Republican repeal legislation would increase deficits by $210 billion from 2010 to 2021.

That may sound like a lot of money, but it's actually a hair-thin margin at a time when federal deficits are expected to average around $1 trillion a year for the foreseeable future.

When the law is fully in effect, 92 percent of citizens and legal residents are estimated to have coverage, as compared to 81 percent now.

Democrats hailed Tuesday's estimates as vindication for the president. "This confirms what we've been saying all along: the Affordable Care Act saves lots of money," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Actually, the government will spend more. It just won't go onto the national credit card because the health care law will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

GOP leaders sought to shift attention from claims about the deficit and focused instead on the additional spending. "What we know from today's CBO report ... is that the new health care law is dramatically increasing health care spending and costs," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Republicans said they remain unswervingly committed to repealing what they dismiss as "Obamacare." When combined with other budget-cutting measures, GOP leaders say that repeal will ultimately reduce deficits. Romney says if elected he will begin to dismantle the law his first day in office.

Medicaid has been one big question hanging over the future of Obama's law since the Supreme Court ruled.

Some GOP-led states, such as Texas and Florida, say they will not go forward with the expansion. Others are uncommitted, awaiting the voters' verdict on Obama in November.

Although the federal government would bear all of the initial cost of that expansion, many states would have to open their Medicaid programs to low-income childless adults for the first time.

CBO analysts did not try to predict which specific states would jump in and which would turn down the Medicaid expansion. Instead, they assumed that many states would eventually cut deals with the federal government to expand their programs to some degree.

As a result, the budget office estimates that more than 80 percent of the low-income uninsured people eligible under the law live in states that partially or fully expand their programs.

The big coverage expansion under the law doesn't start until 2014, with middle-class uninsured people signing up for subsidized private plans and more low-income people picked up through Medicaid.


Joe,
Occams Razor- very good my man. Bottom line, you read one article, I read another. So, who's right, who's wrong? I will spare you the lengthiness. These topics could be debated forever. No need for that. No one will be swayed here. Besides Jon stewart gives you all the well rounded views that are needed for your informed decisions, right? Psst, secret: I watch them all. Here is something else I found for your reading pleasure since you are listing authors for the birth issue.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/why_kenyan_birth_claim_was_no_fact_checking_error.html
So I will ask again, who's right? Like any typical two faced politician, the question in my mind is was he lying then, or is he lying now? Can you really honestly answer that? How do you know? Were you there? Of course not, no more than I was there. All we know is what we read and see. And you have heard the old saying: believe half of what you hear and none of what you see. Just making a point to your response. And once again, I will sign off respectfully to you. Thanx 4 yur time Joe. Take care...fellow American Citizen


Well, I'mdebtfree, by the time I got to my computer, I see Katybug, ROFLMAO and Jane Mackie have done a far better job than I can in responding to your comments. But I am going to respond to the comments you made directly to me.

I don't know why you can't "understand" what I was saying when talking about the wealthy among us contributing their fair share. I don't know why the concept of fairness is so difficult for you to understand. To put it in simple terms, I do NOT think it is fair when the Republicans and Romney are fighting for the wealthy to keep their Bush Tax Cuts but at the same time want to make cuts to domestic programs that would impact the middle class and poor. What is fair is if there are to be cuts in spending, then also let the Bush Tax Cuts expire for those making over $250,000.00 while keeping them in place for the majority of Americans making less than that amount per year. This is the president's and Democrat's plan. If we as Americans must sacrifice to get out of this economic mess we are in, then it must be a SHARED sacrifice and those who believe in fairness do not think the wealthy should be given "a pass" while everyone else does the sacrificing. Don't cut something like the National School Lunch Program in order to give the very wealthy, who are already doing quite well, another tax cut.

I agree that there may have been some people who knowingly bought houses when they knew they could not afford them. But, like katybug put so well, the bottom line is greedy lending institutions knowingly gave loans to people----many who were really unaware----that the lending institutions knew were not qualified for the loan and then bundled them to be sold.


Thanks, Joe Schmo, for the link and information on how the health care law reduces the deficit according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. I had heard something about it on the news today but until now had not gotten a chance to read about it. Nice job. Thanks again.

TBH, I never went looking for Obama's proof of birth. Its kind of like looking for evidence that we flew planes into our own buildings on 9-11 just to scare everyone into war. There is a fringe that believes that, doesn't make it real.

Anyhow, wiki as usual is a great place to start to see how every theory has been dis-proven. You can search up each specific theory on your own to verify if wiki has the correct information if you like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

I know some people will believe anything, no matter how much contrary evidence is placed in front of them, but it still amazes me that those same people will accept others "word" about just as serious issues, or an even better example is the acceptance of God based upon a book written by man.

sam writes, " Anyone that rich, there has to be a clue there somewhere as to how the rest of us can do it. Hey, he did it, didn't he."

Sam, Do you really believe he could show you how to start up a business? His father was chairman and president of American Motors Corporation, former Governor of Michigan, and in President Richard Nixon's cabinet as United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, etc. Mitt was named after family friend, hotel magnate J. WILLARD Marriott. Don't you think the family background/connections may have opened a few doors for young Mitt? He was afforded the best education money could buy; i.e., he became one of only fifteen students to enroll in a newly created joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration four-year program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. Can you see young Mitt having a legal or tax problem within his business world and daddy saying 'Mitt just give my tax man (or attorney) a call until you are in a position to bring someone aboard'? I can. Mom and dad gave Mitt and his new bride their first mansion as a wedding present.

After graduating, Romney was recruited by several firms and chose to remain in Massachusetts to work for Boston Consulting Group (BCG), reasoning that working as a management consultant to a variety of companies would better prepare him for a future position as a chief executive. In 1977, he was hired away by Bain & Company, a management consulting firm in Boston that had been formed a few years earlier by Bill Bain and other former BCG employees. Romney became a vice-president of the firm in 1978. Romney was restless for a company of his own to run, and in 1983, Bill Bain offered him the chance to head a new venture that would buy into companies, have them benefit from Bain techniques, and then reap higher rewards than consulting fees. He initially refrained from accepting the offer, and Bain re-arranged the terms in a complicated partnership structure so that there was no financial or professional risk to Romney. Thus, in 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found the spin-off private equity investment firm, Bain Capital. Romney discovered few investment opportunities himself (and those that he did, often failed to make money for the firm). Instead, he focused on analyzing the merits of possible deals that others brought forward and on recruiting investors to participate in them once approved. He wanted to drop a Bain Capital hedge fund that initially lost money, but other partners prevailed and it eventually gained billions. Romney was on the board of directors of Damon Corporation, a medical testing company later found guilty of defrauding the government; Bain Capital tripled its investment before selling off the company, and the fraud was discovered by the new owners (Romney was never implicated).
For more see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
--an interesting read.

My concern is that Mitt Romney has traveled his entire life within a protected bubble that few individuals in the world can relate to and he really cannot relate to the needs of the average 'Joe' --his entire existence has been very--for lack of a better word --molded. Not saying that with any malice; just stating a fact.


"I don't know why the concept of fairness is so difficult for you to understand."

song98, I have a friend who feels the same way I'mdebtfree feels about 'the poor' among us; i.e, the 'personal responsibility' stance. My friend is an only child and her parents paid her way through college and gave her the down payment for her first home. She has no concept of what it would be like, for example, to work two jobs to shelter, feed and cloth your children. Not a clue.

After retiring, my brother went to Kentucky to work on a Habitat for Humanity project. Later in discussing his experiences on that project, he said he had no idea that people lived like that (poverty).

A relative who actually worked in one of these mortgage companies handing out the (bound to fail) loans began discussing the negative impact of approving some of the loan requests and was told to approve them anyway. Her conscience got the better of her, and she quit the job.


Sorry Sam, your best efforts to support the Kenyan birth conspiracy are fast becoming a laughing stock endorsement for stupidity masquerading as willful deception.

Your best answer is to trot out yet another link to yet another copycat Rush Limbaugh / Glenn Beck inspired far right wing Obama bashing grist mill organization whose only weapon is casting doubt on any and all evidence presented that disproves the Kenyan birth conspiracy? Casting doubt without producing any supporting proof is overpowering evidence Republicans will lie about everything in their quest to seize power. The conspiracy theorists group that now unequivocally includes you Sam, can prove nothing because you have no proof, you can offer only innuendo, distortions, baseless assumptions and lies. You have nothing constructive to offer to the conversation except your wholehearted endorsement of the Tea Party craziness. You have nothing... except the two faces you wear.

Sam: Thank you for your comments and perspective. On line comments are a source for all views and it is always nice to see various opinions/facts, etc. We feel most people in the Valley are intelligent enough to see all sides and make a choice.

As usual, the "sjf" train is never late.

In her younger days must have made it a habit of being a cheerleader for a team that never won a game and now in her advancing chronological condition she still can't shake the habit.

Seriously, this style of narrow mindedness is the hallmark behind what created the 'intelligent design' mentality.... all views are decidedly not equal.


“Who's to blame: Alan Greenspan, Mervyn King, Bill Clinton, Gordon Brown, George W Bush, Senator Phil Gramm, Wall Street/Bankers, Others”

Ok, if the Chairman of the Fed, government leaders and wall street are responsible for the great recession, why do we want to do this …

“Obamacare is a good example of attempts to expand the government. Unless this maze of bureaucratic overreach and confusion is repealed, the Feds will control another 17 percent of America's economy. This bill adds 21 new taxes which amount to over $657 billion additional tax dollars over 10 years, the largest tax increase in American history. Also lurking within the 2,500 pages of this bill are 20,000 new laws to add to the confusion. And contrary to the promises that President Obama made when he was campaigning for Obamacare, premiums will go up.” As stated in the original letter to the Editor written by Leroy Donald, Stephens City

“When "Joe and Sally" who have been married for 2 years, both working, been saving to buy their first home and start a family walk into the bank to ask what their options are and if they have enough money, its the Bankers JOB to tell them if they are able or not.”

OK, if it’s the banker’s job to tell them they can’t afford the loan, shouldn’t it also be the auto dealer’s responsibility to tell them they can’t afford a $35,000 car. Shouldn’t it be the credit card company’s job to tell their customers they shouldn’t make their next purchase because they cannot afford to buy another 60” flat screen TV? Shouldn’t the college tell the prospective student NOT to take $130,000 in loans to get an undergrad degree in history?


When is it Joe and Sally’s responsibility to become educated on how to spend their money? It’s not that hard to learn – google things you should know before taking out a home loan or try how much should I spend on a mortgage payment. There’s plenty of helpful information for Joe and Sally to make an educated decision.

Everybody knows how to tell when you've become rich like Mitt Romney... you have to hire somebody to count your money for you and tell you to hide it offshore in Bermuda or Switzerland or the Bahama Islands.

Did you catch Romney's explanation for avoiding responsibility for Bain Capital shipping jobs overseas? He retired "retroactively". The son-of-a-gun is a time traveler!

All of this leads me to my tale of woe:

I once knew this financial advisor, a bona fide real "expert" on financial matters, who gave me advice on how to make a small fortune if I listened to his recommendations. Sure enough, (ok, you're getting ahead of me here) I made a small one out of a large one. It was all my fault because I shoulda seen it coming. But, the halo fooled me. Plus I had a cold and my nose wasn't working too good either. Turns out he was talking out the wrong end of his alimentary canal. Remind you of anyone besides yours truly?

ROFLMAO


Anyone can spend 5 minutes on google and find the information on the banks that were FINED for giving out loans people couldn't afford, falsifying buyers financial documents, bankers receiving higher commissions off sub-prime loans and ON AND ON AND ON. You had to be living in a cave somewhere not to have seen/heard somewhere when the bubble broke all the predatory practices banks were using.

Borrowing a moment from history.... to even pretend the banks did no wrong and it was all the fault of "greedy poor people" when banks have admitted to the wrong doing is the equivalence of saying Lincoln shot himself, when the evidence pointed to, witnesses saw it, and Booth, much like some bankers admitted to the crime.

I'm not going to argue anymore about facts already proven. You are either open minded enough/ realistic enough to look at all aspects, or you just aren't.

Jane,
Thanks for the Wik-link. Your right, good reading. I had not seen that. I don't know that I would find anything, I think your right. He won't have anything out there for us to use personaly. Would be fun to look at though. Sort of always looking for the next best thing, you know. I do also think that he should show all things requested, "without fail". Will he? We'll see. Thanks for your take on Romney. Very interesting. I will agree that he has some skeletons/ issues as far as the office is concerned. It will be interesting to see how he attempts to overcome these liabilities in the future if he is able to do it at all. They could very well be his demise. Good write. sjf, thanx for comment. I agree with you, "most people". Thanx

Sam -

You read and quote 'The American Thinker', give us a break.

American Thinker is pure conservative propaganda!

It would be the same as offering you a MediaMatters article to support a position.

Oh, Iamdebtfree, you just don't get it, do you? Health care in this country is a run away freight train and we have to correct that! You and I are extremely fortunate as we have made some wise decisions earlier in life regarding work, etc. but you have to factor in karma!!! Ronald Reagan developed a horrific disease in his later years and Nancy was blessed to have everything humanly available to her re caregivers to help with his day to day care. As sad as his condition was, she was very fortunate to have some down time in seeing to his care. Chris Reeves horrible riding accident which left him paralyzed had excellent care and his wife was able to survive because she had good help.

Do you have a car? Do you carry insurance or do you pay the Virginia state MANDATED uninsured motor vehicle fee of $500.00? If you have car insurance, you still pay an 'uninsured motorist' premium, right? Why do you do that? Why don't you fight against paying for all these many irresponsible drivers on the road; after all. they are NOT OUR PROBLEM, right? We are never impacted by their actions, are we?

Our country is in a crisis and people are worried that 'Obamacare' may up your taxes by...what...$10.00 a month? Sorry, but that is exemplar of what foreigners describe as "the ugly American."

Good Morning Mr. Donald, Thank you for your LTTE thus affording all of us such a lively exchange.

Given your comment that "President Obama told a crowd that if you have a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen and that somebody else he was referring to was the federal government." I thought you might enjoy this article if you haven't seen it already.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/24/on-his-own-romney-ad-star-took-over-1-million-in-government-loans/?utm_source=Raw+Story+Daily+Update&utm_campu

Joe Schmo, As you mentioned Jon Stewart, wonder if you have seen this one?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/26/jon-stewart-hammers-romney-over-you-didnt-build-that-quote/

Not 'too flattering' clip on Bill Clinton!
Stewart is not my favorite but if one can get past some of his language, he does show the absurdities of reporting and candidates.

Good comments, Jane. Not only are there people who just "don't get it", many people just don't WANT "to get it". They would rather subscribe to the notion that they have their's and the heck with everyone else who (to their way of thinking) is "not working hard enough" and "only want hand-outs". They choose to totally ignore the fact that though we all agree hard work (unless you are born into wealth) is essential to get anywhere, it is rare to find an instance where those who became successful did not get SOME kind of help in one way or another. And many times this help was some kind of government help but we can see today how those on the right demonize "government". They don't seem to (or want to) understand that helping others to help themselves (Pell Grants, The G.I. Bill being just two examples of government help) are investments in this country and ultimately help the country as a whole. I know we both could tell stories of people we know personally, perhaps including ourselves, who would be illustrative of this fact that helping someone out can make all the difference in the world not only in their future but in how it impacts the country as a whole.

For all the people who complain bitterly about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), they never have any viable alternative spelled out and they never address the fact that we can not sustain what we have now with health care costs skyrocketing and uninsured care costing the rest of us. Not to mention it costs more when an uninsured individual does not or can not go to the doctor when a health condition could be treated far cheaper and easier but instead they wait until it can no longer be ignored and the treatment is so much more expensive not to mention more difficult. They also, as you so well put it, do not have a good explanation of why (using their same logic of their opposition to the Affordable Care Act), we have not heard a peep from them to fight the MANDATED uninsured motor vehicle fee. Federal or State, "mandated" is "mandated"!

Right you are, song98, the opponents of 'Obamacare' offer no alternative solution except to repeat "personal responsibility" which proves just how out of touch they are with life in the United States.

Visits to hospital emergency departments increased to an all-time high of 136 million in 2009, according to new estimates released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This represents almost a 10 percent increase from the 2008 figure of 123.8 million... According to the CDC, patients under 15 accounted for 21 percent of emergency visits in 2009; patients between 15 and 24 accounted for 15 percent; patients between 25 and 44 accounted for 28 percent; patients between 45 and 64, 21 percent; and patients 65 and older,15 percent (Robeznieks, 10/18).

DOI FEB 20, 2012 - Last year, about 80,000 emergency-room patients at hospitals owned by HCA, the nation's largest for-profit hospital chain, left without treatment after being told they would have to first pay $150 because they did not have a true emergency. The uninsured pay upfront fees as high as $350, depending on the hospital, those with insurance pay their normal co-payment and deductible upfront. Physicians worry that sick people will forgo treatment. "This is a real problem," said Dr. David Seaberg, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, who estimated that 2 to 7 percent of patients screened in ERs and found not to have serious problems ARE ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL WITHIN 24 HOURS.

OH, and another interesting little tidbit:

HCA, the largest private operator of health care facilities in the world, admitted fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. They filed false cost reports, fraudulently billing Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, they gave doctors "loans" never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies. In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims. In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle.

In 2006, K. K. Roberts and BAIN CAPITAL, together with Merrill Lynch and the Frist family--which had founded the company--completed a $31.6 billion acquisition of HCA, making the company privately-held again 17 years after it was taken private for the first time in a management buyout.

Trivia for today: The number of people admitted to the hospital because of dog bites increased by 86 percent, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

You’re right I just don’t get it. I don’t get why my money needs to be run through the government back to the insurance companies to pay for healthcare.
“fortunate as we have made some wise decisions earlier in life regarding work, etc” – implies we were just lucky that our decisions were wise, that we had no direct effort in this.
I was fortunate I worked hard to support my family.
I was fortunate I choose to quit smoking at an early age due to cost and health reasons.
I was fortunate I looked at every penny I earned and tried to find a way to put a few of them away at the end of the month.
Could bad karma happen to me? Yes it could. Will I look to the government or my community for help? My answer is community – whether that means family, church, local charitable organizations is up to the individual. That is why since I’m “fortunate to have made wise decisions” I give back to those areas. But instead you claim that people like me have a notion that I have mine and the heck with everyone else. This is totally false.
I don’t understand why my idea of personal responsibility seems to be looked down upon. For this I’m being called selfish?
I don’t understand why citing what foreigners think of us is relevant when most of Europe in in a debt crisis.
I don’t understand why you think Federal and State are the same?
For all the people who complain bitterly about the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes they might make more sense if they bitterly complained about the spending as well. Neither political party is really willing to address this seriously.

I have read about several alternative solutions but I will not present them here as they involve personal responsibility and that seems to be a bad concept. How did that happen? When did personal responsibility become a dirty word? Why is being personally responsible “out of touch”?

"My answer is community – whether that means family, church, local charitable organizations is up to the individual."

I dare you to call Salvation Army, or C-Cap and ask how many people they have to turn away because they do NOT have the funds to help. SA-(540) 635-4020 C-Cap-540-636-2448

You know Debt, its not about personal responsibility. Yes, everyone should take responsibility for themselves. But life just doesn't always work out that way. Being a hard-worker, non-smoker, penny-pincher wont guarantee that you will get over every hurdle life throws at you. It becomes selfish when you lose compassion/empathy/understanding of others.

Right now Americans are donating to the shooting victims in CO. Hospitals are wiping charges clear. Because it is a mass tragedy. Its GOOD that our country can come together in times as such.

But some lose that same compassion when its just one person, when its just a story in the paper about someone being shot. When its "Joe" who lost his job and insurance with a sick wife...Then its "not my responsibility"

It shouldn't take a tragedy to make people care.

I'mdebtfree, how did you come up with anyone saying personal responsibility is not a good thing? What makes you think "personal responsibility" and "helping others" (including with government programs) comes down to either one or the other-----that they are mutually exclusive? They are not! The student who gets a Pell Grant, or those who were able to get an education from the the G.I. Bill, still must take personal responsibility and work hard. My late in-laws, conservative mid-western farmers, were life-long Democrats and forever thankful to F.D.R. and The New Deal for government loans that enabled them to buy their own farm in the early 1940's ---something they would never have been able to do without government loans. Prior to that, my father-in-law had been working very hard as a "farm worker" on the farms owned by others, and with the very low pay he got as a farm worker, he just barely was making enough to keep his and his young family's heads above water with nothing left over to save to put toward buying a farm. With the government loan to purchase a farm and he and his family working very long, hard hours for years making their own farm productive, he and his family were able to have a decent life, he was able to provide help for his children's education, and was able to put a little money away every month for him and his wife to eventually retire comfortably. Government help? Yes! Personal responsibility and hard work? Yes! Honestly, I could tell you story after story of people I have known over the years with similar stories who were able to make something of themselves with hard work and help from a government program in one form or another.

If something happened that you needed help, you are lucky if you have family to help, not everyone does. Church? Many of them are limited in how much and how many they can help. And like katybug said, the charities are having problems. With the downturn of the economy, charities have been receiving less money. And did you know many charities receive money from government funding? You can read about it on charitynavigator.org in which they said "-------government funding is a reliable source (of the charities funding) but in recent years this funding has become less and less predictable".

We all agree that we need to make adjustments in spending, but I will say again, it is immoral in my opinion to take food from children (as in the National Food Lunch Program) in order to give a very wealthy person another tax break. And we would have even more money in the treasury if millionaires, (like Mr. Romney), and big corporations, did not put their money in off-shore accounts to avoid taxes. It may be legal, but is it moral? Is it patriotic?

I guess if someone does not understand "fair", no words will ever help. We just end up talking past one another.

"When did personal responsibility become a dirty word?

Personal responsibility a dirty word, not at all. In my mid-twenties, I found myself the sole provider for two children; didn't even have a driver's license then. I was eligible for food stamps, etc. but, not wanting my children humiliated by 'welfare' comments in our small community, l didn't take any government assistance whatsoever. I worked two jobs for several years with a wonderful sister's help watching my children during my second job. Changed jobs over the years, gradually working to positions offering more pay and benefits which afforded us a better life and, thank God, the three of us enjoyed normally good health. One move was to Florida a year before Hurricane Andrew; lost everything. Had insurance, so start again. Later, I retired in Shenandoah County, meet and married a wonderful person.

Looking back to all the many phases of life, I thank God EVERYDAY for (1) good health and (2) seeing us through a few trials which didn't turn into disasters. Today, I have everything any human could possibly want or need; however, I do remember once a upon a time finding myself in a situation and wondering just how to manage feeding, sheltering, and clothing a family of three. I, fortunately, was hired by a local hospital and became the Admissions Officer there. I wish never to see or hear of a parent holding a child with a fever of 102 expressing concern as to pay for their baby's meds, etc. We can make that come true. Is The Affordable Health Care Act a perfect solution? There is no perfect anything! Are there people who do/will abuse the system? Of that you can be certain. and they are not all on the welfare roles! Ken Lay springs to mind as does Neil Bush, son of GHWBush; the Savings and Loan fiasco of which he was part of a scheme that cost taxpayers $1.3 billion; these televangelists like Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker; and the HCA, cited earlier.

"It shouldn't take a tragedy to make people care."

Katybug, I can tell by your posts that you are truly a good person. It is a pleasure to read you input; if all citizens had your wisdom and compassion, this would be a wonderful world for ALL.

**********************************.

35 By this time it was late in the day, so his disciples came to him. “This is a remote place,” they said, “and it’s already very late. 36 Send the people away so that they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.”

37 But he answered, “You give them something to eat.”

They said to him, “That would take more than half a year’s wages! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?” (Republicans even back then,,,S O R RY, just couldn't resist!)

38 “How many loaves do you have?” he asked. “Go and see.”

When they found out, they said, “Five—and two fish.”

39 Then Jesus directed them to have all the people sit down in groups on the green grass. 40 So they sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties. 41 Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to distribute to the people. He also divided the two fish among them all. 42 They all ate and were satisfied, 43 and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish. 44 The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand.


Have we learned nothing from his teachings?

Thank you Jane for being strong enough to fight this, I am quickly becoming to the point that if I cannot leave Shen. Co. that I am better of dead because the stronger the BoS becomes in raising our taxes as well as our expenses I cannot afford to live in this backward county.

Nothing in that teaching said to give it to the government to redistribute to the people.
“They said to him, “That would take more than half a year’s wages! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?” (Republicans even back then,,,S O R RY, just couldn't resist!)” Jane Mackie.
“Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.”http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
“It turns out willingness to use government money to improve others' condition doesn't guarantee personal generosity. Social scientist Arthur Brooks documented this in his 2006 book, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism."
According to Brooks, conservative-headed households give 30 percent more to charity than liberal-headed households, on average, although liberal families' incomes are higher. Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.”

Usually, the quoting of religious texts to make your point brings the conversation to a close as each side points to chapter and verse supporting the claims, daring the opponent to commit a blasphemous response. It was said elsewhere -- god said it, I believe it, that settles it. Maybe, but most likely not.

Religion is a strange world indeed. One biblical story from the new testament reports feeding five thousand with nothing more than mere scraps of meat and a few loaves of bread. Another story from the old testament revealing religions' obverse cruel side reports Moses returning from his private session on the mountaintop to discover that the effect of a close encounter with god has worn off, at least on Aaron, and that the children of Israel have made an idol out of their jewelry and trinkets. At this, Moses impetuously smashes the two Sinai tablets (which appear therefore to have been man-made and not god-made, and which have to be redone hastily in a later chapter) and orders the following:

"Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses, and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."

A small number when compared to the Egyptian infants already massacred by god in order for things to have proceeded even this far, but it helps to make the case for "antitheism." By this I mean the view that we ought to be glad that none of the religious myths has any truth to it, or in it. The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals. It goes without saying that none of the gruesome, disordered events described in Exodus ever took place.

You may recall a heart-stopping accident that took place in a coal mine in West Virginia. Thirteen miners survived the explosion but were trapped underground, compelling the nation's attention for a whole fraught news cycle until with huge relief it was announced that they had been located safe and sound. These glad tidings turned out to be premature, which was an impossible additional anguish for the families who had already begun celebrating and giving thanks to god before discovering that all but one of their men folk had suffocated under the rock. It was also an embarrassment to the newspapers and news bulletins that had rushed out too soon with the false consolation.

And can you guess what the headline on those newspapers and bulletins had been? Of course you can. "Miracle!" -- with or without the exclamation point -- was the invariable choice, surviving mockingly in print and in the memory to intensify the grief of the relatives. There doesn't seem to be a word to describe the absence of divine intervention in this case.

But the human wish to credit good things as miraculous and to charge bad things to another account is apparently universal.

“The oak fought the wind and was broken, the willow bent when it must and survived.” ― Robert Jordan

I'mdebtfree, You need to read the ENTIRE article of the Brooks, 2008 opinion piece, you posted/quoted; for example,

"According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do."
" Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives."
"Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays."

Religious groups received the most donations - about one-third of the total - but dropped 1.7 percent in 2011 to $95.8 billion. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/19/us-usa-charity-idUSBRE85I0VN20120619

Mitt Romney's charities, for example:

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: $4,781,000
2. Brigham Young University: $525,000
3. The United Way: $177,000
4. Right to Play : $111,500
5. The George W. Bush Library: $100,000
6. Operation Kids : $85,000
7. Center For Treatment of Pediatric MS: $75,000 *
8. Harvard Business School: $70,000
9. City Year : $65,000
10. Deseret International : $50,000
This charitable organization either has not responded to written BBB requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to BBB Standards for Charity Accountability.

* It is very interesting to me that, given the fact that his wife has MS, he donated more to the GWB Library than MS.

Sheldon Gary Adelson, to recall this was Gingrich backer but now Romney's. Originally a Democrat, Adelson became a Republican as his wealth increased. He began making major contributions to the Republican National Committee following clashes with labor unions at his Las Vegas properties.

"Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families." Maybe.
More generally, the 10 most conservative states in 2011 were in the South (Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee), the Midwest (Oklahoma and Nebraska), and the West (Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho). None were on the East or West Coast.

By contrast, all of the 11 most liberal states in 2011 were coastal -- the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Connecticut in the East, and Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and California in the West.

Good read.

As I noted before on some post here, tell five people to read a book and report; you will have five varying accounts.

I used scripture that I believed made my point but I'mdebtfree correctly pointed out there was no mention of government.

"Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.”

I'mdebtfree, Is that statement based solely on the turnout in 'red' and 'blue' states, not on actual head count?

Since the original letter falsifies it, the thing most missing from all our thoughts is:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." President Obama July 13, 2012

What our President actually said.

To quote Paul Harvey, "And now for the rest of the story..."

"There’s no question Obama inartfully phrased those two sentences, but it’s clear from the context what the president was talking about. He spoke of government — including government-funded education, infrastructure and research — assisting businesses to make what he called “this unbelievable American system that we have.”

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that-uncut-and-unedited/

PLEASE, PLEASE, Mr. Donald, PLEASE READ THIS.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/27/kilmeade-warns-brits-you-better-back-off-because-romney-could-be-president/


Fox News co-host Brian Kilmeade -- are you insane?

To quote my niece...."Romney, this is supposed to be the easy part."

Twisting Health Care Taxes
Posted on July 23, 2012 , Updated on July 24, 2012

Republicans are twisting the facts on taxes in the Affordable Care Act, grossly overstating the impact on families or lower-income earners.

In what has become a Republican talking point, several GOP lawmakers have wrongly claimed that a Congressional Budget Office report said that 75 percent of the federal health care law’s taxes would be paid by those earning less than $120,000 a year. That’s not what the CBO said. It found that 76 percent of those who would pay the penalty for not having insurance in 2016 would earn under $120,000. The average annual penalty — which the Supreme Court labeled a tax — is $667 for those individuals. Most of the total tax revenue from the penalty would be paid by those earning more than $120,000 a year.

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/twisting-health-care-taxes/


How much do you know about Obama? Read "Dreams of My Father". He lived and grew up with a card carrying Communist (Frank Marshall Davis) which he considers one of his mentors. His religion is not clarified, but he has said he believes no one can be saved unless everyone is saved as a collective (Collective Salvation). He believes that he is the one to achieve that. How about the people in the White House. His advisors. Cass Sunstien for instance, helped him with the Healthcare Law. That’s not a plan saying everyone gets health care. Its a law that says you must have health care or you will be taxed for it. That tax will be tripled by 2015. It contains in mild wording that the elderly and disabled will not get the same medical treatment (procedures) as now. Cass Sunstien has said the less you have to contribute to the community the less care you need. Look up Complete lives system. Who was in control of Congress the last two years of Bush's term? Obama has outsourced more jobs than he has created here in the US. Some of the stimulus money went to GM and they built more plants in China and so on. Millions of dollars was given to Brazil for oil drilling. He has stopped most oil drilling here on Government land. His policy for coal mining will nearly stop all mining. That’s jobs lost not created. Obama " Under my plan energy cost swill sky rocket" That means gas, which has tripled since Bush, heating oil which has increased, and electricity, which has gone up. Obama is no more than a Community Organizer that has tripled our debt in 3 1/2 years compared to Bush's 8. He is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood for Pete’s sake. Obama spoke off prompter that if you were successful you didn’t do it on your own. I think he meant without the Governments help. He wants to raise taxes for income that is $250,000.00 and over. Who are those people? People who have their own business, that create jobs. Will they, can they create more jobs if they have to pay more and higher taxes. 37% of people in the US 16yrs or older do not pay taxes. That is staggering. That means people who don’t work, cant work, or people that work but don’t pay (Charlie Rangel). Our Founding Fathers fought for freedom and created our Constitution. Its time we demand less government and Find another George Washington. Im voting by Content of Character not color of skin. The main stream media has not been truthful of what is really going on in this Administration. I have done my responsibility of reading, and investigating. I believe if Obama is elected again we will be a no boarder Un-United Socialist States of America.


Typical Tea Party hyperbole.

I think the search for the worst person in the world has found him.......

ROFLMAO

I know, I know, ROFLMAO, don't even say it! I just HAD to, okay?

Thanks for a good laugh, ROFLMAO!

Sorry, ROFLMAO, not what I meant! Although that would have been the bomb! NVD has decided to 'review' my input which means.....

Part 1 of 4

1. Claims that Davis was a political influence on Obama were made by Jerome Corsi in his anti-Obama book The Obama Nation. A rebuttal released by Obama's presidential campaign, entitled Unfit for Publication, confirmed that "Frank" was Frank Marshall Davis, but disputes those claims about the nature of their relationship. Corsi authored the book 'The Battle to Secure America's Borders' with Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist. This book criticized President George W. Bush's border protection policies, accusing him of furthering plans to create a North American Union. In addition, Corsi called for the impeachment of George W. Bush. Jerome Corsi doesn't like John McCann either. In March 2008 Corsi attempted to link McCain to the Mafia and Al-Qaida by reporting that a "Muslim terrorist group with ties to criminal drug networks and al-Qaida" has given "strong support" to John McCain.

2. Health Care: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/


Part 2 of 4

3. OUTSOURCING: John Sununu claimed President Obama “outsourced a major portion of the U.S. space program to the Russians.” But it was President Bush who set NASA on a path eight years ago to retire the Space Shuttle and rely on the Russians for space travel. “[Bush] Administration policy is to retire the shuttle in 2010 and purchase crew transport from Russia,” as then-NASA Administrator Michael Griffin once explained.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_08220_griffin_statement_email.html (Date of NASA Memo: Sept. 7, 2008 )


4. Millions of dollars was given to Brazil for oil drilling. (This was a rumor actually started by Glenn Beck/Fox News Channel)
Q: Did Obama loan $2 billion to Brazil’s oil company to benefit China and George Soros?

A: The president had nothing to do with the loan, which the Export-Import Bank approved for Brazil to buy U.S.-made equipment and services.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/bogus-brazilian-oil-claims/

''...'if you take what I say as gospel, you're an idiot.''

—Glenn Beck, New York Times, March 29, 2009

Part 3 of 4

5, stimulus money going overseas...

According to the ad, the stimulus included:

“$1.2 billion to a solar company that’s building a plant in Mexico.” Actually, the loans were to finance a solar ranch built and operated in California. It’s true that the company that got the loans also recently opened a solar-panel manufacturing plant in Mexico, but a company spokeswoman says most of the panels for the stimulus-financed project will be built in its nearby plant in California.
“Half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland.” Actually, the first round of government loans to Fisker Automotive went toward design, engineering, sales and marketing work done in the U.S. It’s true that the cars it has built so far were made in Finland, but a second round of funding has gone for development of a second, less-costly line of cars that the company plans to build in a shuttered GM facility in Delaware.
“And tens of millions of dollars to build traffic lights in China.” Actually, the traffic lights were assembled in the U.S. It’s true that for a time they were put together using LED lights made mostly in Asia, under a waiver the Department of Energy issued in February 2010 — and then rescinded 10 months later after a foreign company expanded its LED traffic light manufacturing facilities in the U.S.
Some other claims in this ad we’ve heard before, such as the absurd allegation that the stimulus did not create any American jobs (when the Congressional Budget Office’s economists state that it created or saved between 1.2 million and and 3.3 million jobs) and the overreaching claim that President Obama has “wasted” $34 billion on investments like Solyndra (when in fact only 2 percent of such loans have gone bad).

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/stimulus-money-for-jobs-overseas/

6. Crossroads GPS is accusing the Obama administration of “bad energy policies” causing “prices we can’t afford.” But the Republican-leaning group makes some false and exaggerated claims.The narrator’s claim that the administration “limited development of American oil shale” is badly misleading. No significant restrictions have been placed on the currently booming production of petroleum from shale formations such as the Bakken in North Dakota and Montana, or Eagle Ford in Texas. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/bogus-oil-claims-by-crossroads-gps/

7. Obama wants to raise taxes for income that is $250,000.00 and over. WHAT? Rolling back the GWB cuts is not raising them. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, right? Tax cuts for the wealthier among us to create jobs, right? So, where are these jobs from the wealthy? Going to have elevators installed in the garage of their mansions? Oh! Wait! That IS job creation.

Part 4 0f 4

8. “…under George W. Bush, the price of gasoline increased from $1.60 per gallon when he took office in January 2001 to $4.40 per gallon in July 2008, a jump of 275 percent.” (In full disclosure, the price didn't stay at $4.40 too long, but it was over $3.00 for most of his second term,)

"I think it was in the Rose Garden where I issued this brilliant statement: If I had a magic wand -- but the president doesn't have a magic wand. You just can't say, 'low gas.'" --George W. Bush, Washington D.C., July 15, 2008

9. The USA is an advocate of free, democratic elections, right? Well, unfortunately, when that happens in a foreign country, the election outcome may not be what the US desired; e.g., Hamas (Palestine) and the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt). However, isn't it to the benefit of the US and its citizens to try and work with these people vice making them our enemy.

This is a little simplistic but conveys the meaning: Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? ~Abraham Lincoln

And this man said it best:

In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. ~ Mark Twain

ROFLMAO - Mission Accomplished!!!



Leave a comment

What do you think?

(You may use HTML tags for style)

Comments

Comments that are posted on nvdaily.com represent the opinion of the commenter and not the Northern Virginia Daily/nvdaily.com. If you feel that a comment is objectionable, please click on the Report Abuse link above. We will review the reported comment and make a decision on deleting it if we feel that it contains inappropriate content.











top-jobs-logo.jpg



Opinion Sections

Carolyn Long Editorial Cartoons Editorials Jules Witcover Leonard Pitts Jr. Letters to the Editor Linda Ash Mary Sanchez Paul Greenberg Reader Commentary






News | Sports | Business | Lifestyle | Obituaries | Opinion | Multimedia| Entertainment | Homes | Classifieds
Contact Us | NIE | Place a Classified | Privacy Policy | Subscribe

Copyright © The Northern Virginia Daily | nvdaily.com | 152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg, Va. 22657 | (800) 296-5137

nvdaily.com
Best Small Daily Newspaper in Virginia!


nvdaily.com | seeshenandoah.com