Impeach George Bush

[thepatriot]

Untrained no education and no experiance is what some people bring to the table and they still feel they hav a god given right to walk into a 20.00 hr job. It don't work like that if you have a Law degree right out of college.

[kaydeejaded]

I would like to see the minimum wage be raised to a living wage one that is above the poverty level that is something we have yet to see anyone do.

Why is that..?

do they think we'd all go stark raving mad with a little extra money in our pockets?

Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-- Emo Phillips

[thepatriot]

I look at it more as a little insentive to better yourself, not to sound Rush Limbaughish....I hate that fat pig, but there are plenty of grants and loans for college and tech schools if somone really applies themselves. But yes I think it should be raised but not to thepoint of putting small buisness out of buisness

[kaydeejaded]

Rush??? that you?  *pops vicodin* muahahahahhahah

Wicked men obey from fear, good men from love.
--Aristotle

[Anonymous]

Why or why can't we have affordable health coverage in this country?  That's all I want to know.  Ever lost your benefits and been invited to participate in Cobra at astronomical rates?  What a nightmare, you lose your job (or full-time status) so your income drops and then to keep your insurance premium, you end up spending damn near all your monthly income.  Worse still, have a pre-exisiting condition?  Forgetaboutit! No one wants to insure you, period.  

Thanks Hillary, remember when you had the chance to reform the private healthcare insurance industry but managed to screw it up?  Nice going, and to think the people in NY were stupid enough to elect you as their senator.  Guess they didn't have a choice, seeing as she bought the election.

[thepatriot]

I am with Health Care reform as long as its not like Canada or Europe their system is a mess

[kaydeejaded]

Ok, I feel, as though Hilary was railroaded out of doing anything with healthcare reform and Clintion(Bill) was labeled hen pecked.

I started this statement with I feel because it is not a fact that I know it is just an opinion....I really think she did have excellent socialized *gasp* socialized theres that word  :lol: healthcare plans laid out but they just got pushed aside and butched and the 1996 it was 96 right welfare reform act what an abomination. I was disgusted..caps on food stamps? mandatory job training with no set childcare. How half assed. Sad, weak. Bad reforms.

Republican n. A liberty despising, money worshiping, control freak. Democrat n. A liberty despising, social engineering, control freak.
-- Anonymous

[Anonymous]

Yes, Patriot, you are correct ... but Hillary sure did blow a golden opportunity, not because she was "railroaded" but because her proposal was too complex.  End result, waste of taxpayers money.

REAL HEALTHCARE REFORM

"Now what I tried to do before won't work; maybe we can do it in another way. That's what we've tried to do, a step at a time until eventually we finish this." These were the words of President Clinton in his September 1997 speech before the Service Employees International Union in Washington, DC. What was he talking about? Reducing the size of the government? Implementing tax relief? Achieving welfare reform? No, he was talking about reviving Hillary Clinton's disastrous healthcare plan that died in 1994.

What is the ultimate goal? Implementing a plan for socialized medicine for all citizens. The Clinton Administration continually advocates for government solutions for any problem, usually wrapping themselves in the mantra of "protecting the children." Just recently, Vice President Al Gore said in his convention speech in Los Angeles, "We will move toward universal health coverage, step by step, starting with all children." Call it want you want, socialized medicine, single-payer or universal care, it has the same results -- government-run healthcare in which government bureaucrats and politicians decide what care you will get.

Just when people thought the advocates of socialized medicine had given up and it was safe to come out, Clinton Care II, like the mythical phoenix, is rising from the ashes. Americans may have thought they had elected a Congress in 1994 and 1996 that disagreed with big government solutions to solving our problems, but when it comes to the delivery of healthcare, they are wrong. Many members of the 106th Congress seem to be perfectly willing to provide just what "Doctor" Clinton ordered -- socialized medicine. Many senators and representatives are unwittingly playing into the hands of the President and First Lady and other single-payer, government-run medicine advocates by giving them what they want, bit by bit. The pieces of the government-run national health insurance puzzle are coming together all too quickly.

In addition to implementing socialized medicine at the federal level, the strategy also appears to be to establish socialized medicine in certain friendly states. Several states are looking at single-payer systems: California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington are the most visible and have organizations or even legislation proposed to establish state-level socialized medicine. Although the leaders of the efforts in these states often refer to other countries' socialized medicine systems as possible models to follow -- such as Canada or Great Britain -- it is ironic that these activists refuse to acknowledge or simply dismiss the difficulty these very countries are having with their healthcare. These countries face ever-rising healthcare costs, their citizens have difficulty accessing care, and treatment is frequently denied. These symptoms are becoming commonplace in countries with socialized medicine.

Taxpayers must be skeptical when the President, Vice President, members of Congress and government bureaucrats use words like "invest" and "standards" to describe some new healthcare program. These statements are simply code words that will allow a politician to raise taxes and a government bureaucrat to decide what type of care a patient will get. Those choices should be made by the consumer.

Some of the major pieces of legislation pending before Congress and state legislatures are knee-jerk reactions that contain expensive mandates to purportedly fix problems with health maintenance organizations (HMOs). How much could additional government mandates cost? The actuarial firm of Milliman & Robertson estimates that some of the proposed "solutions" could cause premiums to rise an average of 23 percent. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that for every 1 percent increase in health insurance premiums, 200,000 people lose coverage. Even worse, many of the bills open up employers, who provide healthcare coverage, to liability by their employees. This will dramatically increase health insurance costs and risks to employers. The end result will be that many employers will simply drop employee health benefits which they are not required to provide, and more Americans will be left without health insurance coverage.

What is the real solution to rising healthcare costs and better quality? The tax code must be changed so that individuals can purchase their own health insurance and receive a tax benefit. This will force insurance companies to focus on the needs of individual consumers instead of the needs of employers, who currently provide most of the private health insurance in the country. By providing more competition and choices, quality and value will increase and prices will go down, just as with any other product or service. After all, consumers make important choices in the type of cars and houses they purchase and the accompanying insurance coverage without depending on their employer or the government to make the decisions for them.

Congress needs to get out of the mandate-du-jour business and give consumers real choice in their healthcare purchases. Fortunately, some members of Congress from both sides of the aisle are doing just that by introducing bills that provide tax credits for the purchase of private health insurance.
 

http://www.cagw.org

[Anonymous]

Sweetie,
There was a time when one salary could support a household. No longer. It requires two and then some. I resent your comments and imagine that you are really out of touch with reality on these issues and have bought what the media and others say about welfare, etc. You should call your local welfare office and run a theoretical by them, then come back and report to us what you would be eligible for. There are too many myths about welfare and people don't bother to inform themselves, but continue to complain about things that just aren't true.
Want to complain about 4th generation welfare recipients. Take a look at corporate welfare. You might be astounded. I was. Social welfare is but a SMALL fraction of Corp welfare. And personally, I'd rather my money go to a needy family that a glutonous whore who can't be satiated.
My point being, there are not that many 'lazy' people in the world. The vast majority want to provide their families needs and feel dignity in doing so. They aren't looking for a handout- and if they were, its not going to happen at the welfare office. Having worked with a single mother of 4, I am very well informed on the issue. She frequently had to fight for what she was entitled to because the case worker lied about what benefits were available. Consider this as well. That woman has many family members who pay into the system. If, as long ago, we didn't have a welfare system, her family would 'theoretically' have more to assist her with. I'm glad a 'small' portion of her family's tax dollars end up with her, via the government of course.
Aid for dependent children (AFDC) is a joke. You really should check it out if you're vaguely interested in the truth.

And you obviously haven't studied the concept of redistribution. Doesn't mean someone would be coming to take part of your middle-class income. It's not even robbing the rich to feed the poor. It's about a realistic and more level playing field. If we sat down to play Monopoly and I gave you $22 and myself $2000, how long before you're deep in hock with me, that is if you are still interested in playing. That's the reality for many, many Americans. I did a paper on this in sociology. Can't remember the breakdown, but it was eye opening.
When Capitalism is completely open-ended with no pro-human social policies, you have decay of a society. Probably why the US has dropped to #6 in Quality of Life. That is a pathetic shame.

Yeh, there are trade schools, thank god, as I said we NEED diversity. That is not the issue. The issue is that there are millions and millions of Americans who WORK in trades and professions everyday who are paid based on what society says their work is worth. And it ain't enough buddy. Not in this economy. They might be wealthy in China or Mexico, but in this economy, they are border-line poverty. And it most times hasn't a thing to do with HOW HARD people work. Do you not understand what I'm saying, are do you disagree? And if the later, based on what?

Why don't you post the numbers showing how many people are on welfare. How much of our tax dollars go to social welfare vs corp welfare. How many people are homeless. How many working poor in the US- if you know what that term means. Are there enough jobs to employ every unemployed American?

I wonder if you're interested enough to research this, or would prefer to spout the crap you've heard others say without validating it. You're eyes appear to be close and you're in a tiny, comfy little box with big judgments about issues you know little about.

[kaydeejaded]

I hope you weren't talking to me "sweetie"

my comfy box thank God yes it is comfy...but I a few semesters ago for a Sociology of the family class wrote my paper on how bad Clintions reforms were..not offering Childcare while making it mandatory for a mother to be at a said meeting..during said time ect.

I..at the.. time had cute little pie charts outlining the amounts in the governments budget spent on defense, blah blah blah and wellfare that made welfare look like nothing in comparison and these were pre-9/11 spending figures.

I am well aware that the goverment would rather spend 40billion to fund some fat cat on wall street then 40dollars in food stamps for a welfare mother what I just don't know is why.

I take offense that one would think I would be so out of touch as to pass judgement on a welfare mother......ugh!!! When it takes two people working 2 jobs 80 hours to meet the poverty line at minimum wage Facts from Sociology book here in NY of course.....argh.....Not a FAT CAT ...... :sad:

[kaydeejaded]

Ugh I re-read my previous statement...perhaps one might think I was actually not the bleeding heart liberal that most know me to be........

but bleeding HEART LIBERAL  ::mecry::

[Anonymous]

Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul.
-------------------------------------------------
CLINTONS? BOOK DEALS PROVE THEY NEVER NEEDED ?ILLEGAL? LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDS

Judicial Watch Brought 1994 Suit Against Unlawful Clinton Solicitations

Fund Eventually Closed When Chinese Money-Laundering Revealed Through Charley Trie

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government abuse and corruption, has been proven correct. In 1994, Judicial Watch brought its first lawsuit against the Clintons for their illegal solicitation and receipt of monies from the American people to allegedly pay their legal bills. As set forth in the complaint, this constituted illegal gratuities under U.S. anti-bribery and public corruption laws. At the time, Judicial Watch pointed out that the Clintons? solicitations amounted to little more than graft, since their legal fees and expenses -- in defense of their myriad of scandals - could be paid from the proceeds of large book deal advances and other benefits they would receive after leaving office. As predicted, Bill and Hillary Clinton will reap $18 million at least from book advances alone -- proving that their legal defense fund was just a way to profit, illegally, from their scandals. Indeed, it was revealed during the Chinagate investigations ? which were sparked by judicial Watch?s early deposition of John Huang, a suspected Chinese spy ? that over $600,000 in Communist Chinese cash was laundered into the Clintons? first legal defense fund, which Judicial Watch?s efforts helped to shut down.

?Once again, Judicial Watch has been proven correct in its early assessment that the Clintons? solicitations to the American people were just an illegal scam to raise money for themselves and their lawyers ? all of whom tragically profited from the scandals. This underscores why Judicial Watch, in its continuing 80 plus lawsuits against the Clintons, is working hard to bring the Clintons and their lawyers to justice,? stated Judicial Watch Chairman, Larry Klayman.

?We will not rest until the Clintons pay a heavy price for their numerous crimes,? added Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton.

[kaydeejaded]

I just hope we don't have to pay for it



again

[Anonymous]

On 2004-04-16 13:52:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Why or why can't we have affordable health coverage in this country?  That's all I want to know.  Ever lost your benefits and been invited to participate in Cobra at astronomical rates?  What a nightmare, you lose your job (or full-time status) so your income drops and then to keep your insurance premium, you end up spending damn near all your monthly income.  Worse still, have a pre-exisiting condition?  Forgetaboutit! No one wants to insure you, period.  



Thanks Hillary, remember when you had the chance to reform the private healthcare insurance industry but managed to screw it up?  Nice going, and to think the people in NY were stupid enough to elect you as their senator.  Guess they didn't have a choice, seeing as she bought the election."

2000 gala for Clintons probed by FEC
Event raising $1 million for N.Y. senator also investigated by grand jury

By Michael Cieply and James Bates
Los Angeles Times

April 18, 2004

The Federal Election Commission is investigating a Hollywood gala that raised more than $1 million for Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, according to people familiar with the probe. The FEC investigation, launched several weeks ago, comes atop a U.S. Justice Department inquiry that has focused in recent months on the event and former Clinton finance executive David Rosen. In addition, documents reviewed by the Los Angeles Times indicate that a federal grand jury in Los Angeles has been examining evidence of wrongdoing by a number of people in connection with the activities of Aaron Tonken, the fund-raising impresario behind the event.

The scope of the grand jury inquiry and the identity of its targets remained unclear. The Justice Department is believed to be focusing on whether anyone made false statements about how contributions were collected and disbursed.

Tonken, who peaded guilty in December to two fraud counts in connection with his high-profile charity galas, has been cooperating with federal authorities while awaiting sentencing, according to people familiar with his case.

Since last month, FEC investigators have been seeking testimony from a number of witnesses with knowledge of the August 2000 political gala.

Held on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, the event at the estate of radio mogul Ken Roberts was billed as a tribute to outgoing President Bill Clinton. But the gala simultaneously gave a much-needed cash infusion to the then-first lady's successful Senate campaign.

Internet entrepreneur Peter Paul - who paid for the event and is awaiting trial on federal charges of business-related fraud - unsuccessfully asked the commission nearly three years ago to investigate the Clinton campaign for allegedly underreporting his contribution.

At the time, Paul was jailed in Brazil, awaiting extradition to the United States. He is being held without bail in Long Island, N.Y.

Paul is among those asked recently to cooperate with the election commission probe, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

The event he helped underwrite has been estimated to have cost as much as $2 million, including expenses associated with a roster of star entertainers. This year, Paul sued the Clintons and others in Los Angeles Superior Court, claiming that they defrauded him in connection with the fund-raiser.

David Kendall, who represents the Clintons in the suit, said he plans this month to seek a dismissal.

Kendall declined to discuss the Justice Department probe and referred questions about the election commission action to another attorney, who did not return calls.

An attorney for ex-finance chief Rosen did not respond to a request for comment. Based in Chicago, Rosen is a longtime political money consultant who recently worked on retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark's failed presidential campaign.

A commission spokesman declined to comment on the investigation; a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles could not be reached for comment.

Last week, at a creditors' meeting in Tonken's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, Tonken refused several dozen times to answer questions, invoking his right against self-incrimination.

The Los Angeles Times is a Tribune Publishing newspaper.

Copyright © 2004, The Baltimore Sun

[Anonymous]

G.W. is visiting Florida today.  He is stopping in Naples and Miami.  Why is it that when he visits, the only places he visits are two of the wealthiest counties in the state, maybe the country???  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :eek: