November 07, 2010 at 6:35pm
As much as was said between the two groups and as much as the blame game was being played across the state and country, the republicans better come through for the Americans or woe to this nation.
Bob Stoetzel, a democrat
November 08, 2010 at 6:42am
Billions, not piddling millions from earmarks and doughnut holes, must be stripped from Medicare, Medicaid and Defense--attacking both mandatory and discretionary spending alike if the trillion dollar plus out of balance for 2011 is going to be affected.
Stockman is correct--reductions must be also accompanied by tax increases if Republicans are dead serious about balancing the budget and reducing the national debt but you will not see that from many Republicans in office. Does Mr. Davenport agreed with David Stockman?
Will Mr Davenport support the Republicans that have agreed to put defense spending on the table--that amount is half of the 1.3 trillion discretionary dollars--by sending a letter on behalf of the Cannon County Republican Party to Rep. Black and Senators Corker and Alexander asking them to support that debt reduction action?
Does Mr. Davenport support a change in the 14th to bar citizenship to children born of illegals? That has been proposed by some Republicans.
November 08, 2010 at 10:39am
There is no difference between the two main parties... Not really. If we want effective government we need to not be distracted by policy but rather delete the waste of corporations insurance companies and lobbyists influence. The whole idea of aggressively campaigning for term limits is a farce... It doesn't make much difference how long you are in term when the accessibility of a position is so far removed from the common man... The one with the most money wins. We should do away with the superfluous system of voting. It means nothing. Soon the corporations which now have unlimited access to sponsor anyone they wish with as much money as they choose will be the "Great Deciders" - How can I compete with that? The more money you have, the greater your success. That's why there is such an aggressive platform by BOTH parties... Think how much of a gap there will be in the money situation twenty years from now... I wouldn't be surprised if a policy to do away with voting at its base level was eliminated and the method used to "vote" was by supporting Bank Of America or some other financial monstrosity... This country is ruled solely by the merchants class.
November 08, 2010 at 1:08pm
dailyreader: I am going to be honest with you and let you know up front that I am in the camp with most people who read this site in that you have a very hard time making coherent statements because you somehow always manage to start right in the middle of your thought process when you begin typing.
And, I don't appreciate you badmouthing the people of this community, the way the government is run and the decisions that are made because I think it has been proven several times over in previous articles that you don't live here in Cannon County. And you have a bad habit of calling people names because they don't agree with you which is disrepectful and unnecessary and shows the level of intelligence you posess.
#1. To answer your questions about tax increases are necessary to curb spending, I will quote President Obama on 60 minutes last night. The same question was posed to him and the response given was simple. To begin to reduce the national debt, the Republicans have proposed cutting spending levels to what they were in 2008 to which President Obama agreed was a plausible idea and one he was open to discuss (now that he has to eat his humble pie).
So no, I don't agree with your false statement that taxes must be raised to reduce the debt. It is the Republicans at this point who are fighting Democrats to keep the Bush tax cuts in place to which President Obama has suddenly seen the light and agreed it would be detrimental to our economy if they expire. Raising taxes is a Democrat agenda item and not a Republican agenda item.
#2. Do I believe we should cut spending in defense. Most certainly! Without a doubt! I believe there are areas that can be shaved from every single program that exists.
Will I write my Senators and request they cut defense spending in a way that will make my country weak? Absolutely not and I never will. You are the prototypical Democrat in that one of your first ideas is to take away our ability to defend ourselves by reducing defense spending with no regard to the outcome of what might happen.
I think if I were you I might want to write a letter to President Obama and ask that he cut his spending on trips to India and renting 100 rooms in the Taj Mahal, spending tax payer money on monkey patrols and cutting down coconut trees to prevent one from falling on his head. (As reported on the Today show) instead of worrying about defense spending.
#3. Lastly, no I do not agree to a change in the 14th ammendment to bar citizenship to children born in America to illegal parents. I believe if you are born here the Constitution guarantees that you are a citizen of this country. I would not support that in any way and I don't agree with it.
What I do support is a state's right to decide what it wants to do with the problem of illegal immigration since the federal government will not. I think if you took care of the problem of the parents, you wouldn't have to worry about the children because they would not be in this country when they were born.
Bob: I have always considered you my friend and we have always had good conversations. But, I want you to know I disagree with your statement below. The Republicans should not be the ones who "come through" for this nation. First of all, they only control the House of Representatives. The Democrats still controll the Senate and the Presidency. CONGRESS as a whole should be the ones who "comes through" for the American people or woe to this nation.
That's what is wrong with America today. Everyone wants to blame everyone else or a political party. The last time I checked, we were all in it together. Both Republican and Democrat should stop the bickering and work together.
Jeff: This country is ruled by its citizens and not anyone else. That was proven November 2nd.
The people spoke and spoke loudly. There are outside influences that sway opinions I agree, but in the end when we decide to work together nothing can stop us. That has been proven many times over.
November 08, 2010 at 2:52pm
well said Cory, but don't think that logic will get through to daily he just loves to spout nonsense and see if there is anyone out there who will believe it. As for Bob you are right that he is a good guy he just doesn't know how far to the left the democrats have become.
Sue you are wrong on many things. I don't want compromise between the two parties. I want the conservatives of both parties to stop all of this spending and shift of power to Washington. Give Obama more time? You have got to be kidding.
November 08, 2010 at 3:42pm
Mr Davenport: "To begin to reduce the national debt, the Republicans have proposed cutting spending levels to what they were in 2008"
Rolling back the spending levels to 2008 does nothing to reduce the national debt, Mr. Davenport.
Believe it or not there is a difference between the yearly deficit we are running and the national debt which is an accumulation of all those yearly deficits.
In 2008 we still ran a deficit and added billions to the national debt.
To reduce the national debt we must first eliminate yearly deficit. Perhaps my starting in the middle would confuse you.
Come on now, no one suggested you ask DC to cut defense to where we undermine our ability to defend ourselves--so don't play that game--you are more patriotic then I am. I fought for this nation while you were still down the road many decades ahead.
Defense spending can be cut and Congress should do so if we are to break even, much less begin to atttack the national debt.
And I do agree with you on the immigrant problem--denying citizenship goes against the grain of most Americans although a few Republicans have favored that policy. But immigration is a federal problem not a states rights issue.
Sorry to a rankled your feathers, my questions were posed in a respectful manner and done only to find out your positions on some issues facing the nations.
Nothing was said about Obama and my only reference to an individual was David Stockman who may know something about balancing a budget and reducing a debt and that learned through hands on experience.
November 08, 2010 at 4:29pm
The republican party party of the rich tax cuts did not help the working poor.they voted against raising mininum wage and also living wage in tn.Healthcare bill was not best bill republican party killed that also.Everyone needs healthcare or will sooner or later.Low wages just causes more people to suffer.People dont want free ride just decent wage and affordable healthcare.Wake up VOTE DEMOCRAT
November 08, 2010 at 4:30pm
The FY 2008 budget had $3.1 trillion in spending. The FY 2011 budget has $3.8 trillion in spending. If we had returned to the 2008 budgeted spending it would cut the 2011 deficit in half and prevented another $700 billion from being added to the national debt.
November 08, 2010 at 6:32pm
Schizophrenic voters. Blah! Make up your mind. Quit swiching. This does nothing for our country,,,, and I mean nothing. One un does what the other has done. Therefore nothing gets accomplished. Now miff romney? Lol him and his fine you for no health care. Ha! And yes he will run. What a joke!
November 08, 2010 at 6:34pm
Who out there ever listens to Bernie Sanders or Tom HARTMAN?
November 09, 2010 at 6:30am
ringo: with revenues projected at $2.57 trillion you would still have a half trillion added to the debt.
With Reagan/Bush we had cut taxes and spend, spend, spend and tripled the national debt. Bush Jr cut taxes, started two unnecessary wars (one should have been and in an other--destroying enemies and not nation building and the other one was a crime against humanity) got Part D added for seniors and decided not to pay for anything and doubled the national debt.
Now arriving on the scene comes the salvation of the nation.
But even Sen. Paul after a week of consultation decided earmarks were not so bad after all.
The pattern of spending is so ingrained in Washington that unless taxes are increased or we suddenly we get back all the jobs that went to China, Mexico and India, the national debt can never reduced and all we can talk about is reducing the amount, not eliminating, the yearly deficit.
November 09, 2010 at 10:15am
dailyreader nothing you could say will "ruffle my feathers" as you would like. I find people like yourself who have no other desire than to be obtuse and condescending quite comical and sad in your thought process and attempts at making comments you feel are relevant.
Say what you want about reducing spending levels to 2008 not being a way to cut the deficit, but your President agreed that is was a plausible idea and one he was open to discuss. So either you should be President or you are saying your President does not know what he is talking about.
Thanks for "fighting for this nation", but don't you ever question my patriotism for this country ever again. You do not know me and you have no idea who I am or what I have done.
And if I remember correctly in previous articles you stated you had protested against the war in the 1960's, so you and I have a different opinion of patriotism.
You can blame Reagan, you can blame Bush. But, your President and your party have been the caretakers of this economy and mess we are in for the last four years. Your President Clinton and Democratic Congress was responsible for NAFTA and you wonder why we are losing jobs and the economy sucks so bad.
I find 99% of your comments to be lacking in all of the details and random at best. You pick and choose whatever fits your current boondoggle of thoughts and start typing them somewhere in the middle of your thought process.
Lastly, until you decide to be a real man and post your real name and not hide behind a made up pen name, in my opinion you have zero credibility.
Since you are the great and all powerful Oz and know everything there is to know why don't you come out of the closet and let the people really know who dailyreader truly is and stop hiding behind the curtain.
November 09, 2010 at 2:53pm
I certainly agree with nafta although I am a dem. And wow you two shouldcunlock your horns. Sound like boehner and obama. Lol easy. Freedom of speech guys. Going no where.
November 09, 2010 at 6:24pm
A majority of Cannon Countians take advantage of some sort of government program first hand or have a family member that does, isn't that right Mr. Davenport. Your son for instance lives in government subsidized housing, and what about those grants to go to MTSU. It's like looking in a mirror and not recognizing one's own face. You Repos are a hoot.
November 10, 2010 at 6:24am
Great news for deficit reduction and here it is:
Republican Rep. Tom Price, GA. targeted one of the first programs they (Republicans) would like to ax: the $25 billion emergency fund for people who lose their jobs, part of last year’s stimulus bill.
Price even pointed out how much money will be saved over the next 10 years.
Only problem the program has already expired and no money can be saved by eliminating, since it does not even exist.
Sure way to reduce spending--again, Republicans all smoke and mirrors--no substance.
Maybe they will need that O'Donnell witch after all if they keep targeting non-existent programs to achieve the "curb spending" goal.
November 10, 2010 at 6:57am
rxpert86 just to be clear my son is his own man. He is 20 and of his own choice decided to live on his own. He attends MTSU as a full time student three days a week and works three days a week. And the grants you talk about are student loans that he is required to pay back.
Where he lives and how he chooses to live his life is his decision. I am extremely proud of him and what he has accomplished and where he intends to go and do after school is complete.
And if him working, trying to better educate himself and making our community a better place to live is like looking in a mirror, then I am 100% ok with that too.
I daresay not many 20 years olds you know live on their own, have a full-time college work load, work a part time job and donate their spare time to coaching the WGS basketball team like he did last year.
Believing in the Republican party or the Democratic party ideals has nothing to do with any of this.
Lastly, if you weren't a coward and hid behind your pen name, you could give me a call and I am sure I could find several things to talk about your life and your family. Perhaps we could discuss things man to man if you are one.
November 10, 2010 at 7:11am
Typical tactics of the liberal democrats. They can't argue the point on merit so they make personal attacks. Way to go rxpert86.
I am a conservative who took advantage of the WIC program during some lean times, 6 months, when raising a family. I was also working one full time job and one part time job and not sitting at home on my butt. We conservatives love to give people a helping hand we just don't want them to be dependent on us for the rest of their lives. Liberals want Government to take care of people from cradle to grave.
And that's all I got to say about that.
November 10, 2010 at 7:51am
If the federal government just took over everything, I could live on easy street:
FROM USA TODAY:
More federal workers' pay tops $150,000
The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
November 10, 2010 at 8:32am
Probably want be long that Woodbury name will be changed to Beaverville TN.You want see any them republicans not sign for social sercurity or medicare or farm payments and many other good programs.FOR growth you need taxes and thats what puts water on roads roads repaired and built pays police firemen and ems people which is one most important .cannon co lost for sure this election. wake up vote democrat or be left behind
November 10, 2010 at 9:02am
Will your son being one of those insured to age 26 under Obamacare?
Mr. Davenport, have you chastized those who live on government dole, like public housing or welfare checks and yet???
And I have gotten negative comments for wanting and needing the $250 doughnut hole money -
If it goes to some someone else its pork but if it comes home it welcomed with open arms.
Much like the Republicans farmers who object to the spending and yet, here in the county, collect hundreds of thousands in subsidy dollars--hypocrisy??
November 10, 2010 at 9:50am
dailyreader your opinion means nothing. I don't care what you say. Anytime you would like to call me instead of being a coward like others who hide behind a pen name feel free to do so.
By the time my son reaches the age 26 he will have graduated college, he will have a job with a company that provides insurance and would not qualify to be under my health plan according to Obamacare.
No, I don't critize people who take government handouts when they are needed and I don't critize people for living in public housing when it is needed.
I do critize people like yourself who belive in living off the government is a good thing versus working for a living and providing for yourself.
Unlike you I don't feel the need to bring other people down to make myself feel better. Unlike you I don't feel the need to call people names because they don't agree with me. Unlike you, I have a life that is fulfilling and peaceful.
I am asking this as nicely as I can and with as much emphasis as possible. Do not bring my family into any conversations you direct toward me again.
I have never directed any comment I have ever made toward anyone's family and if you can't respect that about mine then you need to deal with me directly.
November 10, 2010 at 10:27am
corey, you have every right to be proud of your son. the point is there are many legitimate programs that CAN improve the quality of life for those who wish to take advantage of them, in order to better themselves. if you were wealthy, i don't think your son would be living in government subsidized housing or taking out government backed student loans. what i hear you saying though, is less government is better unless it affects someone i care about. could your son be independent as you say, without these programs? have a blessed day.
November 10, 2010 at 12:38pm
Sounds like the two parties are working well together while I've been away. I'm greatly encouraged that we will see our Congress equally as agreeable in the days that follow. Right? I fear that until America's voice is heard in its own voice, and not that of either the Democrats or Republicans, we cannot begin to see the progress being made we all hope for. It will take another election, maybe two, before the message gets across that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of the bickering. We want progress to be made and it matters not under whose banner it is achieved. If not under the current banners, then of a new banner yet to be conceived.... but certainly one in the making.
Election Day Nov. 2 was yet but another shot heard around the world. The beginning of Americans taking back their country. The battles that lie ahead during the next two years will be great and tempers will flare until finally our government becomes completely and absolutely dead-locked and ineffective. At that point who will become the voice of reason? The voice that breaks such dead-lock? The voice that Americans can find renewed faith and trust in? Surely it will not be either the Democratic or Republican Party because they will have each shown their inability to lead our nation forward. No. It will be a new voice and one that truly represents the majority of American voters. A voice that is neither extreme left or extreme right. A voice that can and will move along progress. Until then, I hope we do not bring about so much damage in our disagreement that we cannot again be brothers, sisters, neighbors, and friends. Seems we fought a similar battle about 150 years ago to which we now set about to commemorate such suffering and loss to our nation. We must not let such disagreements bring us to that point again.
November 10, 2010 at 4:05pm
Government employees--you note one recomendation of the deficit commission was a three-year freeze in the pay of most federal employees and a 10 percent cut in the federal work force.
Should include a 10% salary reduction.
November 10, 2010 at 8:21pm
I'm with Corey! Let's get rid of these politicians who support unnecessary spending programs. Some of the programs that need to be done away with are food stamps, govt housing, and govt backed student loans. Yup, I support this even if it causes some of the younger generation to lose their independence. While we are at it, the good people of CC should demand the return of all that Obama stimulus money that was used to fix up the courthouse up there in them rollin hills.
November 11, 2010 at 7:17am
What percentage of Americans over 18 draw disability and are capable to work?
What percentage of adults get some government subsidy who could provide for themselves?
I will bet these numbers are not on the decline and these parasites are republicans and democrats.
When did obesity become a disability? ailments caused totally by smoking and drinking?
When was the last time you heard "thank you for assistance in my time of need" or "why this here check aint no more dan it is"
The working people pay the majority of the taxes.
The work force is getting smaller.
The pride of providing is diminishing.
The retirement fund dwindles.
The retirement age grows faster than we age.
Lets stay on this path and see where it takes us!
November 11, 2010 at 7:27am
applejack, I am going to disagree with you.
Not funding programs like food stamps, low cost government housing and student loan programs would affect mostly Democrats since no self respecting Republican would take that much government money that came from the tax payers. Oh, they may take a few hundreds thousand bucks in farm subsidies but not a few thousand in food stamps and housing and the like.
I bet here in the county, all those children going through our schools (sort of like bullpen said-cradle to grave) on a liberal reduced cost lunch program are mostly Democrats also.
No, I am not with you on that at all.
But if you would join forces with me on pointing out the hypocrisy of those who denounce those liberal programs but feed at the trough like the rest of we poor people--- that I would welcome!
November 11, 2010 at 8:03am
any of you hillbilly yahoos in CC driving around without liability insurance? then tell me why it's ok to not get health insurance. dang right people should be forced to get health insurance, because i'm tired of paying for it through higher health care costs every time they get sick! don't tread on me, dang straight you tea baggers!
November 11, 2010 at 8:57am
Mandating that everyone buy health insurance is not going to bring down your cost one bit, hensondelbert, because you (as a taxpayer) will still have to subsidize those who don't rise to a certain income level to be able to afford it.
There is also a big difference between car and health insurance. Most people (with cars) drive every day, and the insurance they purchase is to protect other people, not themselves. A person may go years without needing or seeking health care. Should persons without a car be required to carry liability insurance?
November 11, 2010 at 12:55pm
IF you dont have any kids then I guess you should not pay taxes or buy wheel sticker for schools. thats point of healthcare bill to bring cost down or you can continue to pay for person who has none. wake up vote democrat
November 11, 2010 at 1:15pm
There is nothing about ObamaCare that brings down the cost of health care. That's a phony argument.
November 11, 2010 at 10:15pm
Kev, the whole idea of managed care is to drive down costs, from the amount paid to physicians to the amount paid to hospitals to the amount paid to pharmacies. You really are out of your league on this subject, trust me. i challenge you to name an area of healthcare costs that is not driven down by managed care. go ahead....
now what about those unfortunates who present to srh showing signs of a coronary event? srh stablizes and decides that they need to be lifefighted to erglanger. only prob is pt has no insurance. who pays? i'm sending the bill to you, cuz i'm a tired of paying.
repos talk about personal reponsibility but have a blind spot when it comes to healthcare. one might even suggest that my healthcare costs will be inflated or taxed if you will, if the new healthcare bill is repealed.
November 12, 2010 at 4:32am
applejack, every projection I can find, including that of the Congressional Budget Office, shows both an increase in health care costs and health care spending over the next 25 years under ObamaCare.
November 12, 2010 at 6:20am
Since we have been discussing the Republican Party (among other things) how about some more nuttiness from the Republican Party--maybe the spokesman for the local party will comment on this:
"Rep. John Shimkus is standing by a controversial comment that global warming isn't something to worry about because God said he wouldn't destroy the Earth after Noah's flood.
The Illinois Republican running for the powerful perch atop the House Energy and Commerce Committee told POLITICO on Wednesday that his understanding of the Bible reaffirms his belief that government shouldn't be in the business of trying to address rising greenhouse gas emissions.
"I do believe in the Bible as the final word of God," Shimkus said. "And I do believe that God said the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood."
Got to give the guy credit for believing--doesn't have a corner on that--we have locals here still claiming the earth is only 6,000 tears old and we cavorted with T-Rex.
November 12, 2010 at 8:02am
dailyreader you arguments get more insane every day.
Your beloved King Conrad and his cronies have proposed cutting Medicare and Medicade, raising the retirement age to 69, increasing the gas tax 15 cents a gallon, cutting farm support by 20%, eliminating tax deduction for homeowners counting the interest they pay on their mortgage, etc. etc.
Now who do you think that will hurt the most? The rich or the middle class? The rich or the poor?
You Democrats love to say you are for the poor and want to help the middle class and the first thing you propose is a tax that affects them the most.
What a joke. You are worried about some Senator no one knows about talking about global warming while major taxes against working men and women are being proposed while your President is out spending millions of dollars a day running around the globe trying to get back the jobs Clinton lost with NAFTA.
These cuts and proposed new taxes are so liberal and so pathetic that the most liberal member of the House of Representatives and the Democratic Party Nancy Pelosi said:
“This proposal is simply unacceptable. Any final proposal from the Commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren's economic security as well as for our nation's fiscal security, and it must do what is right for our seniors, who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare.”
dailyreader you serriously need to get a life or move to California and live with all of the other liberal, anti-God, live off the government because it is "our right" and the "government owes us" clan.
November 12, 2010 at 9:04am
kev, you are referring to the cbo projected increase in healthcare costs period. obamacare or not if you will. costs rose more than 7% for employers alone for 2009. inflation however rose a -0.4% last year.
managed care is a way to drive down costs. and i challenge you again to give me an instance where mc does not drive down healthcare costs. YOU CAN'T.
the uninsured drive UP healthcare costs. who do you think pays for it their fairy godmother?
November 12, 2010 at 9:14am
heh heh does the cc repos know that dolittle is quoting pelosi? looks like he might be hiding a lil blue under his ronnie t-shirt
November 12, 2010 at 9:30am
and mr halpern, me and ileen wont to know if you carry homeowners insurance on your castle. we do. jest because it dont hail ever day don't mean i ain't gonna have coverage.
your point about a person without a car is like sayin a person without a body. and yup i have liability car ins because i don't wont to have to pay out the ying if i am at fault in a crash.
im wit whoever said it earlier. it's about personal responsibility. how do my actions or inaction in this case (being uninsured) affect other people.
November 12, 2010 at 9:57am
applejack, since you are the one making the claim, it should be easy of you to point me to statistics who show that managed care has reduced or controlled medical costs. The only thing it really does is limit care.
November 12, 2010 at 10:44am
What should government do, or not do?
I offer two links as a guide:
The Constitution of the United States:
Davy Crockett vs. Welfare:
November 12, 2010 at 11:24am
kev, i'll give you a first hand example. me. my premiums actually went dow about 5% from last year. my family hasn't had to switch docs or stand in long lines like the republicans claim. you guys are like chicken little. it's a tired argument you make and i for one would love to hear how you propose to get a handle on healthcare costs. and again i challenge you. show me an area of healthcare costs that are not driven down by managed care. you STILL can't.
November 12, 2010 at 11:57am
The growth of managed care in the U.S. was spurred by the enactment of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. While managed care techniques were pioneered by health maintenance organizations, they are now used by a variety of private health benefit programs. Managed care is now nearly ubiquitous in the U.S, but has attracted controversy because it has largely failed in the overall goal of controlling medical costs. Proponents and critics are also sharply divided on managed care's overall impact on the quality of U.S. health care delivery.
By the late 1990s, U.S. per capita health care spending began to increase again, peaking around 2002. Despite managed care's mandate to control costs, U.S. healthcare expenditures has continued to outstrip the overall national income, rising about 2.4 percentage points faster than the annual GDP since 1970.
November 12, 2010 at 12:08pm
Every candidate on either side wants to "make Woodbury better," and the goal of both parties is to fix the problems we have (healthcare, immigration, etc.) Further, no one thinks we ought to have "unnecessary spending." Why is this such a common rant against Democrats? No Democrat has ever proposed "unnecessary spending." What is proposed, however, is spending money on necessary things. If there is a dichotomy trying to be drawn here by Mr. Davenport between the past representatives and the new (e.g. the new will try to make Woodbury better, whereas the old didn't), it is all smoke and to no purpose, since obviously, no candidate was trying to make Woodbury worse. If it is a simple statement of fact however - that those in place now are going to do their best to make things better - then it's a welcome statement, though it may be a bit of wishful thinking.
The real question that should be talked about is what would Mr. Davenport and other republicans consider as "necessary things" that need funding. I'm oftentimes a little baffled at the Bible-believing republicans who want to cut federal funded programs - education, foodstamps, government subsidized housing, grants for secondary education, etc. I just don't know how someone can on the one hand refuse to be taxed, or refuse to give just a little more money to help the less fortunate, and without blinking an eye claim to be trying to be a nation "under God" and doing "God's will." It would be one thing if republicans didn't bring religion or the Bible into it at all, but to bring it in, and to ignore a core message in it when it rubs you the wrong way, seems to me to be making it a tool used to further your propaganda. That is the big hypocrisy, the big blasphemy - putting religion in the back seat, using it as a means to justify another end. And what is the end being justified? More money for me? How is that Christian?
Mr. Davenport says that "We believe the American people decided that the current administration controlled by the Democrats in Congress was determined to grow the government bigger and spend money that we just did not have."
Money "we don't have?" Is your wallet empty? Can you look a poor person or someone needing medical assistance in the eye and tell them "the reason I can't help you is because I don't have the money"? I sure couldn't, because I know I'd turn right around and go buy some food from McDonald's or a new cell-phone or an HDTV or something.
I just don't see how on one hand a person can say without batting an eye. If Almighty God asks me at the judgment: "why didn't you help the less fortunate," I know for certain that "I just didn't have the money" isn't going to cut it.
November 12, 2010 at 12:08pm
im wit kev, i personally long for the morphine and sawblade days of davy crockett. remember that kev, next time doc wants to check your prostate
November 12, 2010 at 12:24pm
omg kev, you conveniently left out the parts of the artile you reference that you don't like. i'm shocked at your presentation of such half-truths. same old story same old song and dance my friend.
November 12, 2010 at 12:35pm
well omg applejack, if there is something I left out you feel is supportive of your point, include it in a post.
November 12, 2010 at 1:03pm
double omg backatcha kev. [ the volume of ctiticism (against managed care) led many states to pass laws mandating standards. (wait now that's more govt} ]
[meanwhile, insurers reponded to public demands and political pressure (more govt} by beginning to offer other plan options with more comprehensive care networks-according to one analysis, between the years 1970 and 2005 the share of personal health expenditures paid directly out-of-pocket by U.S. consumers fell from 40% to 15%.]
November 13, 2010 at 6:18am
Most interesting the position of some of those opposing the "liberal" or as the local preacher on the hill labeled it last Sunday, "progressive" policies of the Democrats.
We have some very vocal Republicans, some locally, that ponticate endlessly on the excess spending of Democrats yet have family members taking advantage of every liberal program that comes down the pike. Utilizing food stamps, government subsidized loans, government subsized housing, Medicare Part B and D, farm subsidies while they themselves praise and want more "grants" for beneficial local projects.
You will even find preachers (some local) that denounce Democrat liberal and progessive programs but at the same time are paying into Social Security and when eligible are enrolling in Medicare and even paying the premium for Part B and Part D.
The milk of human kindness for many of them extends only to themselves and family members.
Thank you pcm2f for your comments.
November 13, 2010 at 7:27am
dailyreader, people "take" Medicare and Social Security because they are forced to once they reach a certain age. My parents never needed or wanted their Social Security checks, but could not get the government to not send it to them.
I will take both when I am elible because I have paid into them.
However, I want no grants, loans, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc. because they are not something I feel I, or anyone else, is "entitled" to. What gifts do you feel that you are "entitled" to, that others should provide to you?
November 13, 2010 at 7:50am
corey, since the "newly elected Republican members of Congress" are to "work toward the common good of America" in the coming years, what is the specific Republican plan(s) to reduce healthcare costs for average the joe?
November 13, 2010 at 4:10pm
Mr. Halpern asked "What gifts do you feel that you are "entitled" to, that others should provide to you?"
I readily accept the gifts others have given to me without any qualms. Daily I drive on roads and bridges I could never pay for, I drink water from sources I could never fund myself, go thru airports funded by those who contributed much more to the government coffers than I have.
This bothers me not that corporations and individuals making great amounts of money allow me to enjoy many things including Medicare and Social Security benefits I would have easily exhausted had not they paid in.
The system of our government is predicated on noblesse oblige and that is the foundation of this republic -- the whole of Jesus' teachings hang upon that largesse.
Socialism to some extent, I suppose so.
And I will gladly pay my taxes and have over the years. I too, could have drawn "rocking chair" money many times but felt a long as I could find a job, I would rather make the minimum wage then draw that much or more from Uncle Sam.
What I do not do is begrudge those who need assistance nor will I vote for someone who feels some such benefits are needlessly squandered on the poor and unfortunate.
Furthermore, I would find no fault in paying more taxes if those taxes were to fund programs that help others seek the American Dream.
You have said you will enroll in Medicare and collect Social Security when eligble since you have paid in to those programs, (what will you do when you have drawn out more than you have paid in--good chance of doing that) but will you also enroll in Part B and Part D which are not mandatory nor have you paid in as such?
As I said, I would be greatly surprised to find a Republican who carped about our spending, and if a senior citizen, not enrolled in part B and part D -- even though they did not contribute to those programs with a payroll tax.
November 13, 2010 at 10:41pm
Kevin: you aren't "entitled" to even the air you breath. The only reason you or anyone else is alive at all is by the sheer good pleasure of God. The least you could do is help out a fellow human being who hasn't happened to have the same blessings as yourself. If it weren't for all the breaks in your life, you would be just like those people you say who aren't "entitled" to the government's help. No one has ever really pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. Not all by themselves. We all have got from others, or get from God, way more than we could ever give back. What do you have that you haven't received?
November 14, 2010 at 5:26am
dailyreader, I guess I just lack certain characteristics which make a person greedy, selfish and jealous. Many union and government workers possess those characteristics, which is why our country has less manufacturing jobs than it should and governments are in debt. It's also why we have a housing crisis. I am content with what I have, don't fret because others possess more than I do, and believe that if I decide my quality of life needs improving, it is up to me — and not others — to provide the means to make it possible.
November 14, 2010 at 6:22am
When the company I worked for began to shutdown non-union plants in Arkansas and Mississippi and move those manufacturing jobs into their maquiladora operations in Matamoros, Saltillo, Acuna and other locations across the Rio Grande it was not because of union organazations but to increase the profit margin.
Every campaign I headed up to maintain a non-union plant was successful. My concern was not union wages but profit minded board of directors and stockholders who were not satisfied with a reasonable return on their investment but wanted more and more. Much like those in the banking business who saw an opportunity to grant loans to people who could not afford them and then shift those loans to government backed operations leaving them with clean hands.
Yes, greed was the driving factor by the unions and brought millions of jobs to the southland and greed was and is a factor, not unions, that drives companies to have X-Rays read in India and shoes made in China--but it is not greedy unions or greedy union members driving that wagon today.
I greatly admire your grit and fortitude, you are an exception, for it was said that no man is an island --few can make it this journey without a helping hand from the government.
November 14, 2010 at 7:48am
The government is not an entity of itself - it is SUPPOSE to be us.
Run by us, managed by us, funded by us to benefit -guess who- US!
November 14, 2010 at 1:33pm
Kevin:"My parents never needed or wanted their Social Security checks, but could not get the government to not send it to them". A quote from your earlier post that sounds as misleading as a lot of the 'true facts' put forth by the many misinformed experts that spout their propaganda on both sides.
If your parents drew Social Security they first had to sign up and for and request the payments. So they had to want it at some time, and it is hard to believe you can't have it stopped if so desired. I don't intend to see if I can have my little bit stopped though.