Home Contact Us

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

9/11 Panel Gives Gov't Poor Marks on Reform

Posted By: American Woman on 2005-12-02
In Reply to:

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press
Writer 35 minutes ago

More than four years after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies
still are failing to share information while Congress battles over security
funding, a panel that investigated the terrorist hijackings will conclude in a
new report.

In interviews Friday, members of the former Sept. 11 commission said the
government should receive a dismal grade for its lack of urgency in
enacting strong security measures to prevent terror attacks.

The 10-member, bipartisan commission disbanded after issuing 41
recommendations to bolster the nation's security in July 2004. The members have
reconstituted themselves, using private funds, as the 9/11 Public Discourse
Project and will release a new report Monday assessing the extent their
directives have been followed.

Overall, the government has performed not very well, said former commission
chairman Thomas Kean, former Republican governor of New Jersey.

Before 9-11, both the Clinton and Bush administrations said they had
identified Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as problems that have to be dealt with,
and were working on it, Kean said. But they just were not very high on their
priority list. And again it seems that the safety of the American
people is not very high on Washington's priority list.

A spokesman at the Homeland Security Department declined to comment until the
report is issued Monday. Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland
Security Committee, acknowledged that some areas continue to be vulnerable but
have not been addressed due to disagreements with the Senate.

Congress established the commission in 2002 to investigate government
missteps that led to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It found that the United
States could not protect its citizens from the attacks because it underestimated
al-Qaida. Since June, the former commissioners have held hearings to examine
what they described as the government's unfinished agenda to secure the
country.

Among the main concerns, which former Democratic commissioner Timothy Roemer
said would receive the worst grades:

_The United States is not doing enough to ensure that foreign nations are
upgrading security measures to stop proliferation of nuclear, biological and
chemical materials. Such materials could be used in weapons of mass destruction,
and over 100 research reactors around the world have enough highly enriched
uranium present to make a nuclear device.

We've seen that Osama bin Laden likes to do spectacular things, said Roemer,
a former Indiana congressman. Is a dirty bomb next? ... We're not doing enough,
and we're not doing it urgently enough.

_Police, firefighters, medics and other first responders still lack
interconnected radio systems letting them communicate with each other during
emergencies. Responders from different agencies at the World Trade Center were
unable to coordinate rescues � or receive information that could have saved
their own lives � on 9/11.

Congress last year approved spending nearly $1 billion on interoperable
systems, but King said the matter is a very difficult issue.

_Both the Bush administration and Congress have continued to distribute
security funding to states without aiming most money at high-risk communities.
The Homeland Security Department gave $2.5 billion in grants to states and 50
high-risk cities last year, but some rural states, like Wyoming, received more
money per resident than terror targets like New York.

The House and Senate have been unable this year to agree on a funding formula
that distributes money based solely on risk, threats and vulnerability. King
said the Senate's proposal is still living with a pork-barrel formula. But
Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins said in statement
that her bipartisan plan provides a meaningful baseline of funds to each state
so that the nation as a whole can achieve essential levels of preparedness.

Kean said information-sharing gaps among turf-conscious federal intelligence
agencies continue to exist. He also chastised the Transportation Security
Administration for failing to consolidate multiple databases of passenger
information into a single terror watch list that would make it easier for
airlines to screen for suspicious travelers.

Moreover, expanded governmental powers to seek out terror-related
intelligence have not been adequately balanced by civil liberties protections or
oversight, said former Democratic commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste. He said
President Bush was tardy in naming a civil liberties protection board, whose
funding is anemic and which has not yet been met to get underway.

A bright spot in the government's performance is the creation of a national
intelligence director to help coordinate all government terror information,
Roemer said.

Generally, the grades range all the way from A to F, Kean said.

Still, No parent would be happy with this report card, said former Democratic
commissioner Jamie Gorelick.

___

On the Net:

9/11 Public Discourse Project:

http://www.9-11pdp.org/

Complete Discussion Below:

marks the location of current message within thread

9/11 Panel Gives Gov't Poor Marks on Reform - American Woman

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

Bush's Own Panel Backs Data on Global Warming

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-sci-warming23jun23,1,200411.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo

U.S. Panel Backs Data on Global Warming

Growing Washington acceptance of climate change is seen in the top science body's finding.

By Thomas H. Maugh II and Karen Kaplan
Times Staff Writers

June 23, 2006

After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the nation's preeminent scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth had risen by about 1 degree over the last century, a development that is unprecedented for the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.

The report from the National Research Council also concluded that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.

Coupled with a report last month from the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Program that found clear evidence of human influences on the climate system, the new study from the council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, signals a growing acceptance in Washington of widely held scientific views on the causes of global warming.

The council's review focused on the controversial hockey stick graph, which shows Earth's temperature remaining stable for 900 years then suddenly arching upward in the last century. The curve resembles a hockey stick laid on its side.

The panel dismissed critics' charges that fraud and statistical error were responsible for the graph's sharp upward swing, noting that many studies had confirmed its essential conclusions in the eight years since it was first published in the journal Nature.

There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change � or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work, said House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), who requested the study in November.

The finding was a rebuke to global warming skeptics and some conservative politicians who have attacked the hockey stick as the work of overzealous scientists determined to shame the government into imposing environmental regulations on big business.

Geophysicist Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, lead author of the study that debuted the graph, said it was time to put this sometimes silly debate behind us and move forward, to do what we need to do to decrease the remaining uncertainties.

Though scientists have cited various factors as evidence of global warming � including the melting of polar ice caps and measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide � the hockey stick encapsulated the issue in an instantly recognizable way.

It's a pretty profound, easy-to-understand graph, said Roger A. Pielke Jr., director of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. Visually, it's very compelling.

The chart drew little attention until it was highlighted in a 2001 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

After that, the hockey stick was everywhere, Pielke said.

It also became an easy target.

If you are someone who's interested in critiquing climate science, he said, the hockey stick would be a lightning rod.

One prominent attack came from the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), who last year launched an investigation of Mann and his colleagues. Barton demanded information about their data and funding sources � an effort widely viewed as an attempt to intimidate the scientists.

Barton's committee has launched an inquiry into the statistical validity of the hockey stick. Larry Neal, the committee's deputy staff director, criticized the National Research Council panel Thursday for having only one statistician among its 12 members.

The crux of the dispute is that thermometers have been used for only 150 years. To determine temperatures before that, scientists rely on indirect measurements, or proxies, such as tree ring data, cores from boreholes in ice, glacier movements, cave deposits, lake sediments, diaries and paintings.

Mann and his collaborators tried to integrate data from many such sources to produce climate records for the last 1,000 years. Their report was filled with caveats and warnings about the uncertainties of their conclusions � caveats that were overlooked as the research achieved more celebrity.

The panel affirmed that proxy measurements made over the last 150 years correlated well with actual measurements during that period, lending credence to the proxy data for earlier times.

It concluded that, with a high level of confidence, global temperatures during the last century were higher than at any time since 1600.

Although the report did not place numerical values on that confidence level, committee member and statistician Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State University said the panel was about 95% sure of the conclusion.

The committee supported Mann's other conclusions, but said they were not as definitive. For example, the report said the panel was less confident that the 20th century was the warmest century since 1000, largely because of the scarcity of data from before 1600.

Bloomfield said the committee was about 67% confident of the validity of that finding � the same degree of confidence Mann and his colleagues had placed in their initial report.

Panel members said Mann's conclusion that the 1990s were the warmest decade since 1000 and that 1998 was the warmest year had the least data to support it.

The use of proxies, they said, does not readily allow conclusions based on such narrow time intervals.

The report said that establishing average temperatures before 1000 was difficult because of the lack of data, but said the trend appeared to indicate that stable temperatures could extend back several thousand years.

Poor, poor MT. She can't pick a fight with anyone on her own board tonight and must come here to

Why the quotation marks?
.

That's what I'm talking about....Thank you question marks...sm

Rep. Dingell Marks 50 Years in House

by Andrea Seabrook

At age 79, Rep. John Dingell is known for his prickly demeanor and blunt words, which have earned him respect. Rep. Dingell's Web Site

Morning Edition, December 13, 2005 � John Dingell (D-MI) marks 50 years in the House on Tuesday. Only two others in history have served longer.

Dingell came to Congress in December 1955, when he won a special election to replace his late father. Dingell speaks fondly of working on massive, important legislation he helped shepherd through Congress, including Medicare, food stamps, student loans, consumer product protection and the Endangered Species Act.

There are a few disappointments, Dingell says. In every single Congress for the last 50 years, he has introduced a bill to create a national health care system -- and it has never passed. The Patient's Bill of Rights he championed in the 1990s also failed. And now, with Republicans in control of the House, Senate and White House, Dingell worries they're dismantling the earlier work of his career.

But you have your choice between sitting back and being depressed and letting it go forward, or standing and fighting, he says. I choose the second course.

Poor Poor Rush. Hey, how is AIR AMERICA
nm

Newspaper Marks 1000 Days of Iraq War with Key Stats
Newspaper Marks 1000 Days of Iraq War with Key Stats

By E&P Staff

Published: December 13, 2005 10:30 AM ET

NEW YORK To mark what it called the 1000 Days of the Iraq war, the London daily The Independent offered extensive coverage today, featuring a by-the-numbers approach.

Here are some of their calculations:

$204.4 billion: The cost to the U.S of the war so far.

2,339: Allied troops killed

15,955: US troops wounded in action

98: U.K troops killed

30,000 : Estimated Iraqi civilian deaths

0: Number of WMDs found

66: Journalists killed in Iraq.

63: Journalists killed during Vietnam war

8: per cent of Iraqi children suffering acute malnutrition

53,470: Iraqi insurgents killed

67: per cent Iraqis who feel less secure because of occupation

$343: Average monthly salary for an Iraqi soldier. Average monthly salary for an American soldier in Iraq: $4,160.75

5: foreign civilians kidnapped per month

47: per cent Iraqis who never have enough electricity

20: casualties per month from unexploded mines

25-40: per cent Estimated unemployment rate, Nov 2005

251: Foreigners kidnapped

70: per cent of Iraqi's whose sewage system rarely works

183,000: British and American troops are still in action in Iraq.

13,000: from other nations

90: Daily attacks by insurgents in Nov '05. In Jun '03: 8

60-80: per cent Iraqis who are strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops

*
In an accompanying piece from Baghdad, the newspaper's Patrick Cockburn adds one more stat: A BBC poll yesterday showed that half of the Iraqis questioned say that Iraq needs a strong leader--while only 28 per cent cited democracy as a priority.

Iraqis are cynical about their political leaders, Cockburn writes. The election results are likely to show that the great majority of Iraqis will vote along ethnic or religious lines as Shia, Sunni or Kurds. The country is turning from a unitary state into a confederation.

There is no sign yet of the thousand-day war ending. Every month up to a thousand fresh corpses arrive at the mortuary in Baghdad. A new Iraq is emerging but it is already drenched in blood.

Verrry boring. Antifeminist women easy marks
?

to see McCain's pictures click on the red cross marks, disregard the 1st...nm
nm

Well, you talked a little about tax reform, but
The only reason you haven't heard about Obama's tax cuts is because you have not been listening. His tax cut program will benefit 95% of the population, those individuals making less than $250,000 per year. Obama's plan also has an increase in deduction amounts for working families. I'll skip the scare tactics and terrorist innuendoes. They have nothing to do with the subject at hand�the economy. Preach that sermon to the choir. Nobody else is listening.

O's plan also proposes simplification of the tax code and streamlining tax filing. With regard to earmarks, Obama Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act would require disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be considered by the full Senate. There are also provisions for tax relief to small businesses.

So it seems that you think tax policies take care of the economy issue. But what about unemployment, jobs, worker's right's, minimum wage, stagnant wages, cost of health care and medical insurance, trade, outsourcing, energy, infrastructure, the mortgage crisis, predatory credit and lending practices, the stock market, etc. Does McCain have anything that remotely compares with this?

1. $1000 energy rebate.
2. State growth fund/Jobs growth fund job loss prevention measures.
3. Tax cuts to working families.
4. Eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000/yr.
5. Simplify tax code.
6. Trade policy reform.
7. Revise NAFTA to favor American jobs preservation.
8. Improve jobs transition assistance.
9. Tax credits to companies that preserve US jobs.
10. Establish Advanced Manufacturing Fund to encourage innovation and jobs creation.
11. Increased funding for Manufacturing Extension Program to create and protect US jobs.
12. 5 million new green jobs.
13. New job training programs for clean technologies.
14. Extend Production Tax Credit in renewable energy sector.
15. Create National Infrastructure Investment Bank.
16. Invest in science.
17. Make research and development tax credit permanent.
18. Reform Universal Service Fund to provide and expand broadband across America with new tax and loan incentives.
19. Tax relief for small businesses and start-up companies.
20. Create network of public-private business incubators.
21. Ensure freedom to unionize.
22. Ensure worker's right to organize.
23. Protect striking workers.
24. Raise minimum wage.
25. Crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders.
26. Create universal mortgage credit.
27. Ensure more accountability in the subprime mortgage industry.
28. Mandate accurate loan disclosure.
29. Close bankruptcy loophole for mortgage companies.
30. Create credit card rating system to improve disclosure.
31. Establish credit card bill of rights to protect consumer.
32. Reform bankruptcy laws.
33. Cap interest rats on payday loans.
34. Encourage lending institutions to make small consumer loans.
35. Expand Family Medical Leave Act.
36. Encourage companies to adopt paid leave policies.
37. Expand after-school opportunities.
38. Expand Child and Dependent Care tax credit.
39. Protect against caregiver discrimination.
40. Expand flexible work arrangements.

Earmark Reform

Obama To Push Earmark Reform At Omnibus Signing

Obama to sign spending bill, push for new rules

Obama plans to sign spending legislation, push for new rules that would crack down on earmarks

PHILIP ELLIOTT
AP News

Mar 11, 2009 06:09 EST

President Barack Obama plans to sign a massive spending bill to keep the federal government running, even though it is stashed with the very kinds of pet projects that the campaigning Obama promised to resist.

Obama could sign the $410 billion spending package as early as Wednesday, although he remains "troubled" by the so-called earmarks in the bill that Republicans and moderate Democrats have assailed as unworthy pork-barrel spending. The president planned to use the signing ceremony to announce earmark reforms.

White House officials in recent weeks have dismissed criticism of the earmarks in the bill, saying the legislation was a remnant of last year and that the president planned to turn his attention to future spending instead of looking backward.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama wouldn't be the first president to sign legislation that he viewed as less than ideal. Asked whether Obama had second thoughts about signing the bill, Gibbs' reply was curt: "No."

"This is necessary to continue funding government," Gibbs said. "It represents last year's business. Although it's not perfect, the president will sign the legislation, but demonstrate for all involved rules moving forward that he thinks can make this process work a little bit better."

It's that process that administration official planned to focus on Wednesday, not a bill signing that might take place in private. Aides said the administration would move to introduce new "rules of the road" that could allow Obama greater sway over lawmakers, particularly on politically embarrassing spending that generated mockery from pundits and rival politicians.

During his presidential campaign, Obama promised to force Congress to curb its pork-barrel-spending ways. Yet the bill sent from the Democratic-controlled Congress to the White House on Tuesday contained 7,991 earmarks totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the Republican staff of the House Appropriations Committee.

While the White House would say only that Obama would announce new rules on earmarks on Wednesday, it was clear he wanted to rein in spending, particularly on the pet projects lawmakers inserted into the spending bill.

The 1,132-page bill has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. Among the many earmarks are $485,000 for a boarding school for at-risk native students in western Alaska and $1.2 million for Helen Keller International so the nonprofit can provide eyeglasses to students with poor vision.

Most of the government has been running on a stopgap funding bill set to expire at midnight Wednesday. Refusing to sign the newly completed spending bill would force Congress to pass another bill to keep the lights on come Thursday or else shut down the massive federal government. That is an unlikely possibility for a president who has spent just seven weeks in office.

The $410 billion bill includes significant increases in food aid for the poor, energy research and other programs. It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush.

The measure was a top priority for Democratic leaders, who praised it for numerous increases denied by Bush. It once enjoyed support from Republicans.

But the bill ran into an unexpected political hailstorm in Congress after Obama's spending-heavy economic stimulus bill and his 2010 budget plan, which forecast a $1.8 trillion deficit for the current budget year.

The bill's big increases � among them a 14 percent boost for a popular program that feeds infants and poor women and a 10 percent increase for housing vouchers for the poor � represent a clear win for Democrats who spent most of the past decade battling with Bush over money for domestic programs.

Generous above-inflation increases are spread throughout, including a $2.4 billion, 13 percent increase for the Agriculture Department and a 10 percent increase for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system. The measure also contains a provision denying lawmakers the automatic cost-of-living pay increase they are due next Jan. 1.

Poor, poor Obama......sm
and I bet you don't think that huge press conference, surrounded by the adoring media masses, pandering to poor me (O) being taken advantage of....you don't believe that was political grandstanding?

Tsk tsk.

Health care reform

What do I think about H. Clinton's mandatory health insurance proposal?

Here's my situation....I'm in my mid 50's, have a few pre-existing conditions, and am an IC doing medical transcription for years. I have health insurance which will cover the pre-existing conditions, however I rarely use the policy and have not been in a hospital for over 10 years. In 1999 my premium for coverage was about $250.00 per month. That same policy now costs me $1,097.00 per month, and that is coverage for one person.

I don't know about Hillary's proposals, or that much about anyone else's for all that goes. I do know however, that health care reform is being discussed again, and from where I am sitting I am a very strong supporter of health care reform, be it mandatory coverage or any other proposals. I frankly cannot afford monthly health insurance premiums that are running over one thousand dollars a month, and if you ask me, monthly health insurance premiums as high as this are criminal, to say the least.

The Democrats have been blocking reform of...
Fannie and freddie since 2006. Both McCain and the Bush administration have tried. How did they do that? Killing bills in the Democratically controlled banking and finance committee. It started LONG before the last 2 years.

Americans for Tax Reform: The Candidates

Dear Friends,
1. ATR Presidential Primer: Everything You Should Know about the Candidates� Tax Proposals (read more >>)

ATR Presidential Primer: Everything You Should Know about the Candidates� Tax Proposals

The 2008 election is only days away. Soon you�ll be called on to vote for your next President, U.S. Senator, and U.S. Representative. Are you familiar with all their tax policies? Do you know where the candidates stand on the issues closely related to your family budget?

Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a list of all the recent materials we�ve put out on the Presidential candidates. We think you�ll find these resources and links to be very useful in your decision-making process.

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, discusses his thoughts on the two presidential candidates in the Politico. You may want to take a quick read to see what he thinks hinges on this election.

Educational Resources:

- Which candidates have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge? See if your candidate has promised never to raise taxes. (Incumbents and Challengers)

- Americans for Tax Reform and Rutledge Capital Release Version 2.0 of Obama-McCain 401(k) Tax Calculator

- McCain v. Obama on Taxes

- McCain vs. Obama on Energy Taxes

- He$$ in a Hand basket: Life Under a Democrat Congress

- Five Things You Might Not Know About Obama�s Small Biz Tax Hike

- Obama�s �Spread the Wealth� Plan Raises Taxes on two-thirds of Small Business Profits

- If Obama Wants to �Spread the Wealth,� He Ought to Start With His Personal Tax Gap: Barack Obama Has a Tax Gap of Over $250,000

- Obama to U.S. Companies: �Don�t Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out� Obama Supports Keeping U.S. Business Rate Second-Highest in World

- Worried About Your 401(k)? Start Asking Obama About the Corporate Income Tax Rate

- Obama Advisor Changes the Definition of �Welfare�: Free Money Handouts Are No Longer Enough

- Joe the Plumber cares about more than just his higher tax rates: Expensing his Equipment in year one

Please consider making a $10, $15, or $20 donation to help Americans for Tax Reform continue our work. Thank you for your generous support.

(<< back to top)

Onward,
Grover Norquist

Welfare Reform is a Success

Welfare Reform Reauthorized

Healthy Marriage, Fatherhood Initiative Approved; Work Requirement Strengthened

Today, President George W. Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program administered by HHS� Administration for Children and Families (ACF).

"The reauthorization of the TANF program takes the next step in welfare reform by strengthening work requirements and providing the assistance families need to climb the career ladder," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Welfare reform is helping millions of people climb out of poverty. Now, we want to go the next step and help them climb the job ladder by creating more opportunities for education and job training."

The new law maintains the same 50 percent work participation requirement for states as before. However, prior to today�s reauthorization, a caseload reduction credit allowed states to reduce their work requirement by their caseload decline since 1996. As most states experienced dramatic caseloads declines, the credit had virtually eliminated the work participation requirements for most states.

Today's reauthorization recalibrates the base year for calculating the caseload reduction credit and also closes a loophole to include separate state programs in the work calculation. These changes effectively re-implement a meaningful state work participation rate requirement as envisioned by the architects of welfare reform back in 1996.

"The reauthorization of welfare reform, with its strengthened state work participation rate requirement, supports the Bush Administration's goal of ending the crippling cycle of welfare dependency," said HHS Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. "Welfare reform is a success because more families and individuals are working and entering the economic mainstream and fewer children are growing up in poverty."

Today's reauthorization includes $150 million to support programs designed to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages. Up to $50 million of this amount may be used for programs designed to encourage responsible fatherhood. In its welfare reform law of 1996, Congress stipulated three of the four purposes of the TANF block grant to states be related to promoting healthy marriages.

"A key component of welfare reform is supporting healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood," Dr. Horn added. �Approval of these funds will help to achieve welfare reform's ultimate goal: improving the well-being of children."

The Healthy Marriage Initiative, administered by ACF, was created in 2002 by President Bush to help couples who have chosen marriage gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. Funding for responsible fatherhood includes initiatives to help men be more committed, involved and responsible fathers, and the development of a national media campaign to promote responsible fatherhood.

The welfare reauthorization provisions also made several improvements to the child support enforcement program, including a change that will provide more support directly to families, especially those who have left welfare.

For more information on the Healthy Marriage Initiative, view: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/.

Interesting Speech on Healthcare Reform

Not sure if the embed link below will work. If not, here's the link to the web page where you can watch it. I'll pose a question immediately below this post.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/330913.html

and this today on health care reform

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_overhaul

Please note starting at paragraph 8 the parts about how this will be paid for and go from there. Pretty soon I won't be able to afford TO work.

One site to keep an eye on health care reform....

Hi, all. Here's one site to keep an eye on what your government is doing with health care:

http://www.cprights.org/

I do not want socialized medicine. In England, if you're over 55 and need dialysis? Too bad. You're over the age limit. Folks, this is a government run program and they have to draw the line somewhere. Think you'll still be able to get the same meds you're on now? Don't think they'll say some of them are too expensive?

I should warn you - this is a conservative web site, so if you really dislike conservatives, this isn't the site for you but it does appear to look like a good site to keep an eye on health care reform and you can sign up to receive updates on health care reform as it happens.

I don't know about you but right now, our entire country, our people, are losing the war - the war on freedom. We may lose little battles here and there but if you feel it's important enough, and I do, write your representatives, the president, whoever. Fight those little battles. We don't want to look back 4 years from now and say Oh, man, we should have done this or that...... I don't want to log in to the Q one morning to find out the government, as they have already done since O took over, has passed another bill while I was sleeping (some congressman and senators were threatened with Marshall law and a plummeting stock market if they didn't sign certain bills, which they had less than an hour to read) and now my job is gone because we have new healthcare.

Fight for your jobs! Our government cannot run Medicare and Medicaid and they're both sucking us dry, meanwhile giving really low reimbursement rates to doctors. Do you really think they can successfully insure our entire country? I'll let you judge for yourselves.

OK. Here's an article on Health Care Reform

Please TAKE NOTICE..... Bold and underlined portions are my emphasis. Read the whole article link below.

"Obama wants a health care reform bill on his desk by October, but faces opposition from Republicans who oppose creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.

Many of his fellow Democrats are wary of making deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the U.S. health care programs for seniors and poor people, to pay for reforms.....

,,,,About $110 billion of the new cuts would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments. That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.

Obama also proposed cutting payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients by $106 billion on the assumption those ranks would decline as health care reforms phase in.

An additional $75 billion would come from "better pricing of Medicare drugs," Orszag said, adding the White House was in talks with stakeholders over the best way to do that.

The remaining $22 billion in proposed cuts would come from smaller reforms, such as adjusting payment rates for physician imaging services and cutting waste, fraud and abuse."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/13/news/economy/Obama_health_Care.reut/index.htm?postversion=2009061307

Exxon CEO's retirement package and talks of reform..sm

Senator rips ex Exxon CEO's retirement package

By Tom Doggett Tue Apr 18, 4:53 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid record oil prices and soaring gasoline costs, Exxon Mobil's $400 million retirement package to its former CEO is a shameful display of greed that should be reviewed by Congress and investigated by federal regulators, Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record) said on Tuesday.

Dorgan said he wants Exxon Mobil officials to appear at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing to explain how the corporation justifies giving its former boss, Lee Raymond, such a huge retirement package.

He also said the

Securities and Exchange Commission should investigate the deal that appears to shortchange shareholders.

There can be no more compelling evidence that the price gouging and market manipulation which has produced record oil prices is out of control, and is working to serve the forces of individual greed and corporate gluttony at the painful expense of millions of American consumers, Dorgan said.

Dorgan's criticism of Raymond's financial package came on the same day that U.S. crude oil prices hit a record high of more than $71 a barrel at the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Higher crude oil prices are helping to push of up gasoline costs. The Energy Department reported prices jumped 10 cents over the last week to a national average of $2.78 a gallon, up 55 cents from a year ago.

President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he was concerned about the impact high gasoline prices were having on families and businesses.

Exxon earned the wrath of many lawmakers when it reported more than $36 billion in profits last year as energy prices paid by consumers soared.

Dorgan said he will push to win passage of his legislation that would impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies and rebate that money to consumers, unless the companies used their earnings to explore for and produce more energy.

I think a sensible public policy would insist that the big oil companies either invest those windfall profits in things that will increase our own domestic energy supplies, or we should return some of that money to consumers, Dorgan said.

Using them to drop $400 million dollars in the pocket of a big oil executive is simply unacceptable, he added.

Exxon Mobil has defended Raymond's retirement package, saying it was pegged to the rise in the company's profit and market capitalization that occurred during his tenure.

Stimulus reverses welfare-to-work reform

"....Before the 1996 welfare reform law, Washington doled out more money every time a new family was added to the welfare rolls. If caseloads fell, states got less money. The system created a strong incentive to boost caseloads.

Reform ended the open-ended welfare �entitlement� and replaced it with a program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Instead of linking funding to caseloads, the law replaced that money with block grants and gave states the policy goal of reducing the rolls.

The measure generated tremendous controversy, but it was effective. Caseloads declined by two-thirds. Millions of recipients formerly dependent on government made the transition from welfare to work.

Now we learn that the stimulus bill, signed Tuesday by President Barack Obama, will unravel much of the �96 legislation.

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation � who helped write the �96 law � says the stimulus measure would effectively give states bonuses for boosting caseloads. The new system, he says, is actually worse, because the payoff for increasing caseloads will be much higher than under the old program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

In a paper written with Katherine Bradley, Rector said that under the stimulus measure, �the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare.�

The policy goal of moving families to self-sufficiency has been largely replaced by a system that rewards states for increasing dependency...."

More here:

http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/1046780.html

Oh, and Obama had better get on Welfare reform QUICKLY before it is a run-away train, or did the tra
already leave the station. Extension of unemployment benefits, GREAT, because in this economy it takes so much more time to find a worthwhile job. Extension of COBRA is great. But the free ride that many dishonest and lazy Americans have enjoyed for generations should be put to an abrupt END. Sorry, I see it every day. Hire enough trained, educated case workers, get them out in the field investigating these fraudulant claims, and give the truly deserving and huring population the funds they need to get back on track, as they want to, and push the lazy and indigent to get productive for our country.

I also love the money going directly to the SBA (Small Business Administration), so many of us are fed up and would probably do better working with the SBA to secure low-interest, easy term loans, employ ourselves, employ others, get the taxes rolling, and be part of the solution. Okay safely off soap box for now!

Truth is, Bush's Texas tort reform is hurting everyone.
Except, of course, his rich friends. That's so much better, isn't it, than laws which address the issues directly and favor the greatest number of citizens?

Texan tort reform that was W's payback to the wealthy who put him in office in Texas has been a disastrous model, giving doctors less incentive than ever to perform skillfully and leaving thousands of people with no recourse when they are medically victimized because they can't afford any longer to bring a justified lawsuit or can't prove the doctor intended to cause harm (a ridiculous qualifier). Insurance rates have gone UP instead of down for everyone despite the fact that tort reform was sold on the platform of cutting rates due to fewer insurance payouts. And, those who can manage to get a case into court no longer have the right to have a jury hear their case. Activist pro-Republican pro-big-business judges are all they've got in some cases, which means they haven't a fair chance at a favorable outcome.

That's life in crony capital USA!

But oooh, let's pretend it really *is* medical lawsuits that are the villains, and let's boo and hiss at the lawyers who make sloppy doctors and sellers of defective merchandise fear being held accountable for their actions. Isn't that what life in Bushworld is all about? - relieving the very best among us from any civic and legal responsibility for the destruction and death they cause? Let's all cheer for that! Go on sm, cheer some more for losing your right to sue a drunk doctor who kills your child! Cheer for your higher insurance rates! Cheer for your free market enterprise unfettered with quality laws, because you know they're going to be more concerned about the safety of those products they sell you than they are about making more money! Heck yeah, why shouldn't we all love that? We're all morons, we love it when they stick it to us! We can't get enough of that, nosiree!

Progressives harping about camp finance reform for years.
We've heard virtually nothing out of the republican party on this issue (except resistance) until how. Why is that? Could it be because they never expected democrats to beat them at their own game?

Spare us the phoney outrage. As the law stands now, those small potatoes contributions up to $200 have not been an issue until Obama received such a landslide of them and raised more money than any other candidate in history.

You want somebody to do something about this? You will have to start at the beginning...swallow the bitter pill and enact campaign finance reform. Until then, you can raise all the questions you want to raise.

PS: Ghadafi's claims that foreign national fundraising is "legitimate" is pertinent to this argument how? Have you seen the global electoral map lately? The entire world has their eyes on this election (hoping against hope we will not elect another saber-rattler) and are entitled to have an opinion.

http://www.economist.com/Vote2008/ Take a look.

O.K. friend, I LOVE tax reform for the wealthier bunch, the small fry like us have been shouldering
too much of the burden for many, many years, I love the cut-off for those making over 250K....hey, if we were bringing in that $$$ we would be happy and spreading it around (don't mean the manure,either!). We need stronger immigration reform FOR SURE, it is a touchy subject, especially in states like mine with a large immigrant population, but they just held a huge, large, angry rally on the State House steps becaue they don't want families broken up by sending the illegals back. Sorry, as a grandchild of immigrants who came here, assimmilated, learned, worked hard, payed taxes,and became PROUD AMERICANS, I feel strongly this is the right and only way and our president should enforce this. They are called "illegal" for a reason.

There are too many "Pet Projects" in states where the reps helped fund the Obamaa campaign, and these investments will not have a long term good for the country, we need programs that will directly affet the economy and the Americal worker ASAP. I believe he is forging ahead too quickly and blindly with relations with Syria, a known hot spot for extremists and terrorists, although I believe in the old addage "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," and I think that is what he is doing with Hillary going to Asia and Southeast Asia and opening talks with Syria and Korea. All in all, I just want to give this honest man a chance to get going on some things, see some of the results and go from there before I open mouth and insert foot!!!

Did you read the bill? It was a regulatory reform bill...
asking them to regulate, not de-regulate. But Democrats blocked it...no wonder. Fannie was greasing a lot of Democratic palms...and Frederick Raines, the Dem CEO at the time...was in the Clinton administration. They were taking care of their own...and we are paying for it.

Poor man
That poor man, what he went through..I dont know how he survived.

The poor just need to die, right?

I don't know where you live, but where I live, you are better off working. Clinton cut welfare down to a pittance - 40 hr work week for $123 per week. Kids get Medicaid. Ah, can't forget the food stamps - must begrudge these sloths food!

In Nazi Germany, the Jews cooperated in their own destruction; the Nazis found a form of defection that looked to desperate Jews like cooperation, and they boarded the cattle cars. The message of the Contract Republicans seems also to be that the only cooperation we seek from the desperately poor is that they vanish. The message is that we do not care how they do it: die, leave or metamorphose into something else; just don't disturb us on your way out.

I know what it's like to be poor.....
I know what it's like to consider paper towels a luxury. Where Banquet salsbury steak, macaroni and cheese, hotdogs, rice and oatmeal was all I could afford to eat. I see that again in my immediate future due to job loss and illness in my family. If I'm in that 30%? So be it. We'll make it. We always have. I just refuse to worry about it.

Poor kid, he is confused, isn't he?

Poor people are not the only ones
so blaming obesity on the left IS the joke. Rush isn't poor is he? What about Cheney and Rove? I am well aware of the report he was referring to (I read it too) but describing *bloated tummies* and Unicef is sick and I don't see how anyone can call it satire. Further, what difference would it make if the link worked? You jumped to his defense without even knowing what the article said.

Poor Hillary

So Bill is now coming out saying people are picking on Hillary.

Oh the poor baby. Wasn't she the one who said "If you can't stand the heat....."

Whether I like her or not is besides the point. This is an election and Bill & Hillary need to realize if you want to win you have to work towards it. It's not going to be handed to you.

Yes, I realize she is working hard, but so is Barack Obama. Do you hear him crying when she makes a racial statement about him about how nobody "white" is going to vote for him?

Grow up Bill & Hillary!

And a poor one at that. It bombed.

Poor Judgment
Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".

It was the OP who said poor were unintelligent, not me....
I was quoting her. It is ridiculous to state something like that. The best people I know never went past high school and are the smartest people, rich in common sense, I ever hope to meet. Sometimes the best knowledge does NOT come from a book.

Your grampa and hootsy comment is just nasty. I have heard every debate, I watch Obama every time he is on the tube, and he is the master at dodging questions. He never gave an interview to anyone who would ask him hard questions until last month and he has been at this for a year and a half. But you never hear Obama followers say that. Because whatever he says, even if it is beating around the bush, he says the magic words I will punish the rich and give all of you in the middle class a tax cut...and that is all they want to hear. Democrats have been saying that same old stuff for years...when in the past were you much better off than you are right now?

I am actually better off financially now than I ever have been. I have survived both Republican and Democrat administrations and just worked my way up to where I am. I am not rich, but I am comfortable. And Obama is intent on taking that away from me. Don't expect me to be happy he is doing it, or that you are helping him do it. lol.

Have you always been this hateful toward the poor?
such hostility toward the working class you so strongly assert to be defending is dead-end dialog. That 95% IS the "working class", as you call them. I prefer the term income earners. If you had any clue about the true state of this economy, you would realize that not only is the 95% tax cut feasible, it is exactly what we need and it will be coming at exactly the right time when we all need it the most.

I do not live in a universe where taxpayers line up and bend over while they bail out corporate welfare deadbeats and turn a blind eye on themselves and their children. It must be a very dark world you come from where you seem to thrive on the energy it takes to sustain such hatred in your heart for the poor. My sympathies.

Poor is subjective
My mother made less than 10 an hour, raised two children on her own, managed to pay a house note (the house was falling apart but it was ours), pay for a piece of an automobile to get her back and forth to work. We didn't have anything to speak of, but she never took a penny from the government. She wasn't raised that way and it hurts her to this day to watch all those that now live in her neighborhood on HUD, paying as little as they can get by with, when they still bring in more than her.

Her total income for the year is LESS than 12 thousand a year and she still manages to pay her bills. But those neighbors manage to get all the freebies and extras courtesy of my mom while she watches the nice cars in front of their HUD houses, which she can't afford, nice clothes they wear, jewelry hanging all off their necks and arms. Their kids are walking around with EXPENSIVE clothes on their butts and walk the streets up and down, up and down all day long. They are LAZY. THey have been raised to be LAZY. In this day and time it is sad to know there are those adults out there that continue to raise their children to believe they are "entitled". So very sad.

In these cases, they are not poor, but the government would consider them "poor", even though they have more than my mother, who can't get help at all. Now you figure that one out.

And, the one who gets the HUD house lets everybody and his brother live with them, free of charge of course, so it's like one big 'ole party all the time....music blaring, sick disgusting rap crap, throw their trash in the streets, filthy mouthed. It's sickening.

Poor doesn't always equate with lazy. You're right and I hope your daughter can do better somehow. Her husband should be forced to pay for his child and his fair share and she would not have this problem.

Maybe she should get in touch with all those neighbors around my mom. I'm sure they know the system so well they can tell how her to manipulate the system to get whatever she wants.

Poor Joe the Plumber is going to have
to worry about paying taxes. Turns out he doesn't have a plumber's license nor does his employer which is required by the county. No license, no work, no taxes. Poor Joe.

Isn't the poor the ones that get the welfare now?
So what's your complaint? You think they need more? Fine, give them everything you have and we'll call it a day!

They are both in very, very poor taste and should be
taken down. It is truly amazing what some people will do.

That poor man wasn't even...

...technically an "employee." He was a temp, so I guess he wouldn't even get life the insurance benefits that an employee might get.

I hear how the poor are
tumors living off the lifeblood of hardworking Americans. Throw all the immigrants out. But, you berate a woman, who out of obvious desperation poisons herself, because she cannot see her way out of pregnancy. Talk about double standards. You probably support the death penalty, too.

Poor baby...(sm)

Using the term "teabaggers" is rude? I shouldn't ridicule others with different beliefs? Give me a break. You guys have consistently ridiculed anyone who agrees with Obama time and time again on this board, as well as those who just don't agree with you. Rude? How about Kool-Aid drinkers, Obamatrons.....you know the list.

The problem with you is that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you plan on teabagging effectively you might want to consider growing a pair.

Excuse me if I'm not sympathetic to those poor,

And talk about moral values! To be more concerned about the profits of a drug company and the fear that the government might "strong arm" them into possibly SAVING THE POPULATION OF AN ENTIRE COUNTRY in a time of WAR is absolutely shameless and reflects a total lack of values.

But that IS the "red" way of thinking, isn't it? Big business must always come first.

Conservatives don't care about the poor...

NOT!

America and the Poor...

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

By Bill O'Reilly

PHOTOS

VIDEO


Click image to enlarge