It's a big country - enough sunshine for all of us.
Are you high?
Why don't you blame him for your hemorrhoids while you're at it.
When I was in high school ...
Spanish and French were both offered. They were optional, however. I don't think we should REQUIRE any child to learn a second language. If they want to, fine. And Obama makes the point that most French, Spanish, etc. are bilingual...speaking English AND their native language. Well, duhhh. Of course they do. How else do they cater to American tourists, the lifeblood of several European cities. Or cater to American business. If I moved to France and was going to live there, I would learn French. If Mexicans are going to immigrate and live here, they need to learn English. Where's the rub?
We don't compete with overseas MTs because they are bilingual, trilingual, or multilingual. We complete with them because they will do what we do for a whole lot less money. End of story. Then it has to be run back through American editors to good ENGLISH. Not good INDIAN, FRENCH, SPANISH, et al. Not a real good argument. And I don't know how our children speaking Spanish or French is going to help them unless they plan to move to Spain, Mexico, or France. Last time I checked, speaking Spanish or French did not pay the bills either.
LOL. High regard. nm
nm
high horse?
nm
Oh, get off your high horse.... I'm sure you
have had nothing to say when McCain and Palin are being kicked about here. Your true colors are showing!
I have to say that I did see a lot of high school age...sm
kids standing behind him at his rally yesterday.
Right, because you are too high on the Obama
nm
Prices were very high
There were no bargins this summer. Everything was very expensive. Cheaper to shop in US.
Still in junior high?
Be gone.
How can you have a high rating without doing anything yet?
Oh, I forgot. Dems + hook + line + sinker = Fauxbama for Prez.
It is a big venue because of the huge number of people who want to be part of the historic event of our first black candidate's acceptance speech. I see it as a defining moment in our history and I am pleased that he wants to include as many as possible. Wish I were there. Still, the flight suit . . .
~In high school, you usually have a couple of candidates, but it usually narrows down to two. Usually you have one candidate who will promise the stars and the moon in the form of soda machines, more "senior lunches", more time off, etc. Now we all know full and well that a high school class president can't get these things, but he will say he can. Usually the candidate that can promise the most is the one that wins.
~Don't forget, in high school it's also a popularity contest!
~Oh yeah, and if it's two guys, most of the girls don't care what they say, they just vote on the cutest one.
~90% of the voters never even hear what the candidates have to say. They usually just vote off of what everyone else says or who is their buddy.
~In the end, nothing changes at the school. Still the same amount of vending machines with crappy food, still only get one senior lunch per month, and if anything, you lose a few days off.
Everything about Bush's administration was not all bad, but 98% of it was. I did not vote for him for either term, but I did respect him as our country's president. All of the people against President-Elect OBAMA are knocking him before even giving him a chance.
I am thankful for a change. Anything has to be better than what Bush has given us for the last 8 years. People say we are doomed, this country is going down. Bush started that roller coaster ride quite some time ago. President-Elect Obama can now run this country down any more than Bush has already done. Besides, it will take some time to sift through all of the mess that Bush created.
By the way, many have said that Obama will be killed. If no one stepped up to the plate to take first dibbs at Bush for what he has done to this country, Obama will be just fine. He is in God's hands and God will take care of his own.
For once, it would be a great accomplishment if we all came together as Americans instead of being divided, mostly by race. Sad fact is most people are still very prejudice and will never get past the color of one's skin color.
High winds - now that's funny
You know I'd still put Athiest in your name. Last I knew it was a free country and we are free to believe whatever we want. I'm not Athiest, but I'm not Christian or any other religion either.
I'm not so much ashamed of my heritage, I'm more ashamed of the ignorant people (like my brother). He's my brother and I love him but I just wish he would think before he speaks.
I am proud our country has come as far as it has in the fact that we can have anyone as a president and color doesn't matter anymore. America has progressed and that is good, but just the way some people portray it that they don't know anything about him, his issues, voting record, what he's going to do for the country, they're just glad a black man is in there, and then to hear Obama talk race all the time. That's when I think to myself....I'm so ashamed. But am sure it will get better.
Thanks for your words. Look forward to those high winds. HA HA HA
You are living in some high a.. place and I wish
the lake front property I sold about a year or so ago had gone per acre what they said yours was worth, oops, lacking $10 it did sell for that much. Am not good with math. The taxes on that were not much, thank goodness because my own home taxes were quite high. Seems like when 1 place comes down (or off) then somewhere else taxes it back on. Close to me in Atlanta last year water restrictions on due to drought- people followed and now the rates for water have gone up.
I think the risk to the hostage is too high...(sm)
to just storm them. France just did that to another one that had French hostages, and one of the hostages was killed during the raid. I really don't want these guys to get away, but if we're talking about the safety of the hostage, maybe the best thing right now is to pay the ransom and then go after them. I don't think they WANT to kill the hostage because then they get no money. Keep in mind, this is a source of income for them -- that's why they do it.
Fox ratings are at an all time high because...(sm)
as we all know, it's hard to look away from a train wreck.
I think the Simpsons had a big run on ratings like this at one point. That show was also fiction.
Fox ratings are at an all time high because
people are hungry for the truth. You want to believe it is fiction, but the numbers speak for themselves. This is their 9th year and building. Even CNN is 3rd now and fighting back. What do you expect from Immelt and Zucker on MSNBC? Ms. Maddow is really showing her ignorance to say she does not know the purpose of the Tax Day Tea Parties. This is grass-roots America speaking up. I gotta admit, its not nearly as juicy as soap opera using an unwed teen pregnancy to keep the subject off the REAL soap opera that was happening at G20 and tour. That is what was hilarious!
My son is being told in high school
in a lot of his classes that there will not be SS anymore in the near future. SS will be gone.
If it's high you flash it, if it's low you hide it.....sm
like everything else, isn't it?
I heard your most high priestess Cindy S. is saying it Infantile? High school behavior?
that RINOs finally declare their true party and leave room in the Republican party for true Republicans. And Specter has, in an uncharacteristic moment of honesty (or senility,) illustrated the fact that every politician considers his first duty to be getting re-elected. I hope that Specter gets soundly unpantsed in the next primary - as a Democrat. That would truly put the icing on the cake.
And about Specter, isn't it about time for this guy to retire? He is a great example of the 'senator for life' syndrome.
The Republican party put forth a very poor presidential candidate in 2008. Maybe they learned from that experience and will return to more a conservative party line. So if a few RINOs jump ship here and there, I think that's excellent.
I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state.
I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.
The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production.
Perhaps I should have been more clear also. I guess I don't see it that way. I guess I don't call that "high regard." I don't find that genuine.
You, on the other hand, are genuine. My comment was directed at Letterman, not at you. I doubt his sincerity, for the reasons I posted. I don't doubt that you believe him, and that is fine for you...again, I don't mean that you are not genuine. I just don't believe Letterman is.
Several high-profile dems support McCain.
nm
Government employee morale at an all-time high!
I work at the Department of Education headquarters in DC. Today completed our 2-day introduction to Arne Duncan. Yesterday he had lunch in our cafeteria (Edibles, ha ha), with his wife and children. His wife wore jeans and a sweater and Arne looked like an average Joe in khaki dress pants, white shirt and tie. They stood in all of the lines and talked to anyone who approached them. They probably stayed 90 minutes. It was definitely the highest cafeteria attendance ever.
Yesterday afternoon he visited every floor of our building and introduced himself to everyone. We all came out into the hall and he shook everyone's hand with a "Hi, I'm Arne."
By the end of the day yesterday, everyone was aglow, since this was already more attention than we'd received from Spellings or Paige. Today, however, was the all-staff meeting, and I can say that the morale in the building increased ten-fold by the end of it.
Our auditorium was beyond packed, with people standing in the aisles. I myself snagged a seat on the floor next to the stage kindergarten-style. Arne stood in front of a blue screen that read "Call me Arne!" in bright yellow letters. He insisted that we call him Arne, rather than Mr. Secretary or anything like that, saying his name was Arne before he got this job and it would be 8 years from now.
I know this isn't anything earth shattering, but the change in the atmosphere at the Department over the last week has been really astounding. In the past, we all knew that the Secretary had an agenda that she was going to follow, and that we were only there to affirm that her way was best. We really feel that Arne wants to know the truth, whether it fits with his agenda or not.
That looked like a juvenile high school posting
nm
Uh oh, high and mighty might be construed as a Christian term. Don't make her mad. sm High Court upholds Oregon Assisted Suicide Law
(It's interesting to note that Roberts was a good, obedient little Justice as he hung on to Scalia's coattails and supported the Bush administration. I can't help but believe if Alito had been installed now, the decision most certainly would have been 5-4, instead of 6-3. I thought that Republicans were in favor of states' rights. Guess not. In this case, the citizens of the state voted for this law. We're only one Bush LIFETIME appointment away from the end of freedom of self-determination.
High Court upholds Ore. assisted suicide law
January 17, 2006
BY GINA HOLLAND ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON-- The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.
Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said that a federal drug law does not override the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people. New Chief Justice John Roberts backed the Bush administration, dissenting for the first time.
The administration improperly tried to use a drug law to punish Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of prescription medicines, the court majority said.
Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.
Kennedy is expected to become a more influential swing voter after O'Connor's departure. He is a moderate conservative who sometimes joins the liberal wing of the court in cases involving such things as gay rights and capital punishment.
The ruling was a reprimand to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who in 2001 said that doctor-assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose and that Oregon physicians would be punished for helping people die under the law.
Kennedy said the authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself, Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.
If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death, he wrote.
Scalia said the court's ruling is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position.
Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people-- those with incurable diseases and who are of sound mind, and after at least two doctors agree they have six months or less to live.
For Oregon's physicians and pharmacists, as well as patients and their families, today's ruling confirms that Oregon's law is valid and that they can act under it without fear of federal sanctions, state Solicitor General Mary Williams said.
The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide.
Ashcroft had brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day his resignation was announced by the White House in 2004. The Justice Department has continued the case, under the leadership of his successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The court's ruling was not a final say on federal authority to override state doctor-assisted suicide laws-- only a declaration that the current federal scheme did not permit that. However, it could still have ramifications outside of Oregon.
This is a disappointing decision that is likely to result in a troubling movement by states to pass their own assisted suicide laws, said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which backed the administration.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and a supporter of the law, said the ruling has stopped, for now, the administration's attempts to wrest control of decisions rightfully left to the states and individuals.
Thomas wrote his own dissent as well, to complain that the court's reasoning was puzzling. Roberts did not write separately.
Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive. Then, justices in 1997 unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. That opinion, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said individual states could decide to allow the practice.
Roberts strongly hinted in October when the case was argued that he would back the administration. O'Connor had seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but her vote would not have counted if the ruling was handed down after she left the court.
The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Proposals to expand coverage to children from families earning three or four times the federal poverty limit ($61,940 and $82,600, respectively, for a family of four) also highlights the question of just how many should be subsidized, necessarily at others' expense. The $61,940 eligibility limit would cover median-income families in 14 states, and the $82,600 limit would do so in 42 states. Parents earning such incomes do not need additional subsidies for their children to get health care.
************************
Baucus, Grassley Comment
Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the committee's ranking Republican Chuck Grassley (Iowa) jointly requested the CBO study but "had divergent views of its findings," according to CQ Today.
Baucus, who supports spending $50 billion over five years to expand SCHIP, said the report validates the program. CQ Today reports that Baucus "expressed little concern" that people would leave private insurance plans to enroll in SCHIP, saying that every public health insurance program provides coverage to some people who might be able to obtain private health insurance (CQ Today, 5/10). Baucus said, "The fact that uninsurance for children in higher-income families has stayed about the same means that SCHIP is helping the lower-income families it's meant to serve."
Grassley said the report supports his argument that SCHIP eligibility should not be expanded beyond 200% of the poverty level. He said, "This report tells us that Congress needs to make sure that whatever it does, it should actually result in more kids having health insurance, rather than simply shifting children from private to public health insurance" (CongressDaily, 5/10).
****************************
SCHIP is a joint state-federal program that provides health coverage to 6.6 million children from families that live above the poverty line but have difficulty paying for private insurance. Already, the program is generous. A family of four with an income of more than $72,000 (350% of the federal poverty level) is eligible for SCHIP's subsidized insurance. Now, Congress wants to expand coverage even further, to families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($82,600 for a family of four). But, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 89% of families earning between 300% and 400% of the federal poverty level already have coverage. The CBO estimates that some 2 million kids already covered under private insurance would be switched over to government insurance. The only purpose of all of this seems to be to turn children's health insurance into an outright entitlement — part of the Democrat's broader push to move all of America's health-care industry under government control.
Along with expanding SCHIP coverage to include people higher and higher up in the middle class, the Democrats' bill would also give states incentives to sign up aggressively new "clients," by loosening requirements to join the program and encouraging states to market the program (anyone who rides the New York City subway knows how active the Empire State is already being on this front). How is all of this to be funded? Well, the bill would impose a 61-cent increase in the 39-cent a pack federal cigarette tax, bringing it up to an even dollar. We've written before on how corrupt is the government's interest in the cigarette business. It turns out that the government needs to keep people smoking; the Heritage Foundation estimates the government would need to sign up some 22 million more Americans to take up smoking by 2017 to fund this increase in SCHIP. To add to the irony, most smokers are low-income Americans, meaning that the poor essentially will be funding the health insurance of the middle class. Mr. Bush would be right to veto it while working to increase access to private insurance through tax breaks and deregulation.
****************************
So, it would appear to me that the major problems some have against it are: it will shift children who are now covered by private insurance onto a program unncessarily; it will allow for more adults on the program, something that was never intended; that paying for it with a tobacco tax targets the very people who need the assistance, the lower income families as statistically that is where the most smokers are...essentially shifting the burden for adding middle class families to the lower income families...and I think we can all agree that is not a good thing.
In my research I also found something VERY interesting...
I am sorry to say I did not know the particulars of the President's proposal regarding insuring children...only his proposal extends to everyone, not just children...sure have not seen the media report it....
Opposing view: President's plan is better
Extend SCHIP program without spending billions to expand it.
By Mike Leavitt
We all want to see every American insured, and President Bush has proposed a plan to see that everyone is. Congress, instead, is pushing a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that grows government without helping nearly as many children.
The president's plan, announced last January, would fix our discriminatory tax policy so that every American family received a $15,000 tax break for purchasing health insurance. If Congress acted on the president's plan, nearly 20 million more Americans would have health insurance, according to the independent Lewin Group.
In contrast, Democrats in Congress would more than double government spending on SCHIP and extend the program to families earning as much as $83,000 a year. But their plan would add fewer than 3 million children to SCHIP, and many of the newly eligible children already have private insurance. So instead of insuring nearly 20 million more Americans privately, Congress would spend billions of dollars to move middle-income Americans off private insurance and onto public assistance.
The Democrats' plan has other problems. It would fund SCHIP's expansion with a gimmick that hides its true cost. It would allocate billions of dollars more than is needed to cover eligible kids. And it would allow states to continue diverting SCHIP money from children to adults. This is a boon for the states but costs the federal government more.
Ideology is really behind the Democrats' plan. They trust government more than the free choices of American consumers. Some in Congress want the federal government to pay for everyone's health care, and expanding SCHIP is a step in that direction.
SCHIP is part of the fix for low-income children, and Congress should put politics aside and send the president a clean, temporary extension of the current program. Expanding SCHIP is not the only way or the best way to insure the uninsured. The president's plan is better. It would benefit many more Americans. It would focus SCHIP on the children who need help most. And it would move us more sensibly toward our common goal of every American insured.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think a $15,000 tax break would help more American families afford health insurance, thereby covering more kids AND adults, which is the goal, right? And no raising of taxes or targeting the lower income families with a tobacco tax...sounds like a win-win. I don't care if it is Bush's idea or the Democratic Congress' idea...it is a good idea. This time it happened to be Bush's.
Just my take on it.
If you want to find the articles, just put *expanding SCHIP* in a Google search. I read several articles in support of both sides. I did not see much about the income leveling, except in one article, which did mention that New York had a "sliding scale." It did not define it, but I am thinking it is at the purview of the states, and if New York did it others probably could too?
marks the location of current message within thread
