Don't agree at all-healthy food more exp

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

In this situation, people can't help other people if they can't help themselves.

If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.
St. Francis of Assisi

He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his dealings wtih animals.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 � Democrats and their allies mapped out a strategy on Friday that they hoped would enable them to override President Bush�s expected veto of a bipartisan bill providing health insurance for 10 million children, most of them in low-income families.

Democratic leaders said they would highlight the contrast between the president�s request for large sums of money for the Iraq war and his opposition to smaller sums for the State Children�s Health Insurance Program, known as Schip.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said, �It�s ironic that in the very same week that the president says he�s going to veto the bill because we can�t afford it, he is asking, what, for $45 billion more over and above his initial request for the war in Iraq, money that we know is being spent without accountability, without a plan for how we can leave Iraq.�

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said, �This is all a matter of priorities: the cost of Iraq, $333 million a day; the cost of Schip, $19 million a day.�

The campaign for the legislation will also include grass-roots advocacy and political advertisements, and will initially focus on about 15 House Republicans who voted against the bill. Supporters of the legislation hope to persuade them to switch.

But House Republican leaders said they felt sure they could sustain the veto, and two lawmakers on the Democrats� list said that they would support Mr. Bush.

The bill passed this week by the House and the Senate would provide $60 billion for the program over the next five years, up $35 billion from the current level of spending. On Wednesday, the administration said it would seek $42 billion more for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing its total request to nearly $190 billion for the 2008 fiscal year, which begins Monday.

In an interview on Friday, the House Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri, said there was �a 100 percent probability� that the House would sustain the president�s veto.

But, Mr. Blunt said, the coincidental timing of the vote on the child health bill and the request for money in Iraq �was not helpful.�

The White House, on the defensive, is trying to bolster Republicans who fear they might be penalized by voters if they side with the president.

Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said Friday, �It is preposterous for people to suggest that the president of the United States doesn�t care about children, that he wants children to suffer.�

Ms. Perino said the president had a policy difference with Democrats in Congress because he did not want �additional government-run health care, socialized-type medicine.�

Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who helped write the bill, said he would reach out to House Republicans and urge them to override the veto.

�This bill is not socialized medicine,� Mr. Grassley said. �Screaming �socialized medicine� is like shouting �fire� in a crowded theater. It is intended to cause hysteria that diverts people from reading the bill, looking at the facts.�

The battle will be fought in the House, where the child health bill was approved on Tuesday by a vote of 265 to 159 � well short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto.

Ms. Pelosi called Mr. Bush on Friday and said she was praying he would sign the bill.

But Mr. Blunt said: �I bet she�s praying for him not to sign it. The bill is all about politics. It�s pretty good politics for the Democrats.�

Still, Democrats face an uphill fight to persuade Republicans to change their votes. Supporters would need 289 yes votes to enact the bill over the president�s objections if all the members were voting.

One of the Republicans singled out for special attention by Democrats was Representative Judy Biggert, from a suburban Chicago district. She was one of 16 Republicans who signed a letter to the speaker last week, urging her to take up the Senate version of the child health bill.

The compromise closely followed the Senate version, but Mrs. Biggert voted against it, saying, �It would push Americans one step closer to socialized medicine.�

In an interview on Friday, Mrs. Biggert said she would vote to sustain the veto.

Democrats said they would also focus their efforts on Republicans like Representatives Timothy V. Johnson of Illinois, John R. Kuhl Jr. of New York, Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan and H. James Saxton of New Jersey.

Mr. McCotter said he was a big supporter of the child health program, but would vote to uphold the president�s veto, even if critics ran television advertisements against him.

Under the bill, the federal excise tax on cigarettes would be increased to $1 a pack, from the current 39 cents.

�I vowed never to raise taxes on anybody, no matter how disliked they might be,� Mr. McCotter said in an interview. He said he would rather be voted out of office than go back on his promises to constituents.

Republican senators who worked on the compromise bill, like Mr. Grassley and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, said they had tried in vain to persuade White House officials to join the negotiations.

Ms. Perino, the White House spokeswoman, said that after vetoing the bill, Mr. Bush would like to �sit down and come to a compromise� with Congress.

The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said the president should not hold his breath waiting for such a deal. Democrats, he said, have already made many concessions to keep the support of Senate Republicans.

A lot of times a "no" vote comes from some hidden provision that doesn't jive with the candidates' personal policies, i.e. it might not be that they disagree with the issue, but instead that they disagree with the strategy proposed to tackle it.

I'm not sure if this website has any politicial affiliation (I couldn't find one), but I checked several of the states constitutions out and they were spot on. Now, I'm not a Bible thumper (or even attend church regularly), but I thought this was interesting considering Obama's speech.

Please note that at no time in any of these constitutions is anyone told that they MUST worship God.

I just watched the video where he stated he was going to put such high caps and make the coal industries pay mucho dollars and hopefully bankrupt the coal industry. BUT, he also stated he would use dollars they must pay if they want to use coal, for clean energy policies like wind power, etc.

So, that said, how does he intend to pay for all his other energy technology if he bankrupts the coal industry and businesses that use coal? After all, if he bankrupts the businesses that use coal which, by the way, is most electric power plants, whose pocket will he be dipping into for the money for his clean energy policies???

I just asked my son's girlfriend who works at a grocery store if you can buy soda with food stamps and she said yes-no wine or beer, no toilet paper, shampoo or other nonedible things and no cigarettes, but soda and candy, chips, yes.

able to have a garden? Don't you have a produce market? Can or freeze veggies and fruits in season. Buy meats in bulk and freeze. Our markets allow food stamps. Stock up on a sale and freeze. Most meats last 6 months frozen.

DH has relatives in western NY and they always had plenty because they did the above. There was no junk food bought with food stamps. In fact, they never even applied for food stamps even though they would probably qualified for them. They took nothing free from the government. There was no junk food in their home, either except on a "special occasion."

Please don't think I am accusing everyone who gets public assistance of this. Many people who get the assistance really need it, and I have a friend who is an example.

But there is also a subculture involved here. People can qualify for food stamps who have undocumented income, under-the-table earnings, and even money from criminal activity. They don't actually need the food stamps to eat, but they get them.

Back when food stamps were actual coupons, there used to be a thriving black market in buying and selling food stamps for a percentage of their cash value. Then the money could be used for tobacco, alcohol, drugs and other things. Maybe the new debit card system put a stop to this, maybe not. The money goes into your account every month. All it would take is lending your card and sharing your PIN number with someone. My friend has never been asked for ID.

And if the object of this assistance is to feed (and I think by that we mean nourish) people, is it right for parents to stuff their kids full of twinkies, chips and Pepsi with the food stamp money? What the kids need is nourishment, not junk. What we end up with is another poorly nourished, hyperactive generation that cannot concentrate and learn in school, then cannot hold down an adequate job, and the cycle repeats itself.

In the county where I live, if you are on public health assistance and get pregnant you have to comply with a whole host of requirements. Parenting classes, classes on prenatal nutrition, classes on how to take care of an infant, regular checkups, drug tests, classes on contraception, etc. You should consider this a job. We are paying you to have a healthy baby, and these are your duties. Women scream about this being degrading, and an invasion of their privacy.

But honestly, if you accept the assistance, why would you assume there should be no strings? Why would you assume you don't have to jump through some hoops to get it? Do you expect to be left alone until the day of delivery, get a free stay in the hospital, and go your merry way? Can't we assume that since this is your second illegetimate pregnancy, you don't really know what's causing it? Or you forgot and need to repeat the class?

These types of assistance are supposed to be an investment society makes in improving the situation. Used properly, they can be. But often they are considered just another entitlement. *Just gimme the money and get outta my face.*

is when family members and other private American citizens are forced to personally purchase and send BODY ARMOR to the troops because your precious God Bush doesn't care enough about them to supply them with adequate equipment that might help KEEP THEM ALIVE. But to you CONS, the only good soldier is A DEAD ONE. That's the difference between you and us: We want them to stay ALIVE.

Believe it or not, you are less important to me than I am to you. Your words are wasted on me, because I don't possess one iota of respect for you and those of your ilk. You simply aren't worthy of it.

If you find this board so objectionable, I can't understand why you continue to impose your presence here. There is a CON board for your use and convenience. Instead, you come here and impose your views on people who are of a different political ideology and then stomp your foot and whine and sigh and complain when they refuse to let you control them. You're beginning to find out just how difficult it's going to be for you to control all Americans. It just ain't gonna happen. We don't want you imposing on our religious beliefs, we don't want you in our bedrooms, and we'll decide birth and death issues, as well as stem cell issues, and any other PERSONAL issues independently, without CON control, interference and intervention.

You said you're leaving. Time will tell what you're really made of and whether you're being honest and truly do leave or whether, like a true Bushie, you're NOT telling the truth. My guess is not.

House OKs budget bill cutting $50 billion in aid
Medicaid, food stamps, student loans take a hit

Washington -- House Republicans, after weeks of negotiations, narrowly passed a budget bill early Friday to cut $50 billion from Medicaid, food stamps, student loans and other programs over the complaints of Democrats that Congress is squeezing students, the elderly and the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

The House approved the bill 217-215, after GOP leaders agreed to demands from moderate Republicans to jettison a measure to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and to slightly reduce proposed cuts to food stamps.

Still, the vote was so politically sensitive that House leaders didn't begin debate until 10 p.m. Thursday and didn't pass the measure until nearly 2 a.m. -- when most news reporters gone and only a few C-SPAN junkies could witness the fiery floor action. No Democrats voted for the bill, and 14 Republicans opposed it.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco said in a floor speech that cutting money for Medicaid, child support enforcement and foster care as the House prepares to vote on $70 billion in tax cuts was a sin.

Republicans are launching an attack on America's children, on America's families, Pelosi said. They are also launching an attack on America's middle class, all of this to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country.

But House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., responded that the proposed cuts were needed to rein in the growth of federal spending on health care and other programs.

Medicaid is growing at a 7.3 percent growth rate per year, Hastert said. It has been growing for years. Is there a better way to do it? Is there a more efficient way to do it? Should we find some reforms to make it better? Yes, we should.

The House bill also would split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, a goal of conservatives who have long complained the court is too liberal. But the breakup of the appellate court, which covers the country's Western region including federal cases that arise in California, is not part of the Senate budget bill. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are seeking to strip it from the final package.

The battle over the budget reconciliation bill now moves to a joint House-Senate conference committee, where lawmakers will have to make several critical decisions, including:

-- Will the final budget bill allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

The Senate version would allow drilling, but a group of House Republican moderates has pledged to oppose any final bill that would open the Alaskan wildlife refuge for development.

-- How deeply will lawmakers cut student loans?

The House bill would cut student loan programs by $14.3 billion, while the Senate version cuts them by $8.8 billion. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the House bill would cause a typical college student with the average of $17,000 in student loans to pay an additional $5,800 in interest and fees over the length of the loans.

-- Will some legal immigrants lose their food stamps?

The House bill would cut off 220,000 people from food stamps by allowing legal immigrants to qualify for the food aid after seven years, instead of the current five years. The Senate bill does not cut food stamps, and moderate lawmakers are urging that it be dropped from the final budget package.

-- How will the cuts affect Medicaid recipients?

The House bill calls for $11.4 billion in cuts to Medicaid, while the Senate bill trims spending by only $4.3 billion. The House bill also would allow co-payments to rise over time with inflation and would deny Medicaid nursing home benefits to people with $750,000 in home equity.

-- Will child support enforcement be cut?

The House bill would slash funding for child support enforcement by $4.9 billion. The Senate did not include any cuts to child support enforcement.

-- Will Medicare be cut?

The Senate voted to eliminate $5.4 billion in subsidies for some regional insurance companies that agreed to participate in President Bush's Medicare prescription drug program. The House bill does not cut the subsidies.

Congress watchers expect that lawmakers are likely to split the difference between the House's $50 billion in cuts over five years and the Senate's $35 billion in trims. But the negotiations will be difficult for GOP leaders. Conservatives, especially in the House, have been pushing for deeper cuts. Republican moderates plan to lobby to restore funding for some programs.

House Republicans argue the heated rhetoric over the budget bill's effects is overblown because many cuts are simply limiting the growth rate of certain federal programs. For example, the proposed cuts to Medicaid would lower the annual growth rate in spending on the program from 7.3 percent to 7 percent.

But Democrats complained the cuts hit the wrong targets, including students struggling to pay for college. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would increase costs to students and families by $8 billion, including nearly $5.5 billion in costs when students consolidate loans.

You're hurting the students of this nation, Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, told Republicans in an angry floor speech. You're putting their families in debt. You're piling on the interest rates. You ought to be ashamed of it.

E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com.

Anytime you sell anything, be it a home, car, truck, or anything at all that appreciates in value, do you realize the capital gains tax will affect your bottom line?

Say you buy a car for $200 and know it's worth $1200. If you turn around and sell that car for $1200, you're paying capital gains on the difference.

If the O raises the capital gains tax to 24-25% like he wants to, it will be your loss. Do you really want to pay another $250 in taxes on something you paid $200 for?

What about providing them the tools to deal with and live a productive life with their handicap or mental illness? The problem with the liberals and their idea of helping humanity is that throwing money at the problem doesn't make it go away. Do you know how many homeless people out there suffer with mental illness? Do you know how many people with mentally ill family members weren't able to get their loved one the help they needed? I'm talking tangible help, not just a monthly stipend that doesn't even cover the meds they require!

Do you realize that your husband, mother, father, sister brother, who ever can slice their wrists and take a handful of pills in an attempt to commit suicide, admit to their family they don't want to live, but when they show up to the ER and say "I didn't really want to kill myself" they just let them walk away with stitches in their wrists and after they've pumped their stomachs? Did you know that even if they holler in the ER to the doctor, nurse, and social worker that they don't want to live and the most a family member can do to help their loved is an affadavit for a 96-hour hold in most states? After 96 hours, they are deemed "okay" and released again to go on their merry way.

The liberal lawmakers have passed laws that say a mentally ill person has the right to be mentally ill. They have a right to decide not to take their meds and they have a right to be homeless. They are allowed to make decisions on their own which are detrimental to their well being, both physically and mentally! A family member pleading to the court that this person is incompetent and cannot take themselves is virtually ignored. I dare anyone to try to go to a court of law and get POA over a mentally ill loved one and see just how difficult it really is. It's impossible thanks to the liberals.

I didn't vote for Obama, I was one of those on the fencers. But I must say one thing I am impressed with so far is his complete overhaul of the US food safety system and the new rule of no downed cows being put into our food system.

Some things should just be common sense, and they weren't being implemented. Good job Obama!

the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel. I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts. (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC. I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox. I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)

I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor. (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)

But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder. And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)

I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion. One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.

But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member? That sick stuff DOES happen in this country. What if she knows she wants an abortion? Should she be forced to have the baby? I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know. I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion. That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.

As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman. After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it. I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they? I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight. Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay. I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country. As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay. (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray.

)

With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker." That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.

I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."

NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.

Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.

We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.

First, it's freedom of speech. Next, it will be freedom of religion. What about freedom of "thought."

I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them.

Don't agree at all-healthy food more exp

House OKs budget bill cutting $50 billion in aid Medicaid, food stamps, student loans take a hit

House OKs budget bill cutting $50 billion in aid
Medicaid, food stamps, student loans take a hit