After over 50 years of working between us, this is the first time that we are without health care. We are both professionals and were considered “middle-class” if there is such a thing anymore.
We owned a home which was in our means, we saw it drop over $100K almost overnight. Since there was a new job for my engineer husband “right around the corner” we spent everything we had trying to pay our bills and maintain our “within our means” lifestyle.
“Right around the corner” turned out to be over 1.5 years to get a job offer. Our biggest worry was not losing everything that we had worked for, the worry was getting sick and not being able to afford health care. It is a security to know that if this situation happens again, we will at least be able to maintain our health.
The insurance industry does not want change, it is not in their “special interest.” This is a victory for the American people, I just wish all the millions that was given to the banking industry was instead spent on paying off the mortgages of the American people.
It would have been a win-win. The banks would have been paid off and the homeowners who were in danger of losing their homes would be OK now. With the banks secure, the business would pick up, attitudes would have changed and the DOW would have gone up. Promoting business, and prompting the consumer to go out and spend money. Instead, the banks took the money and paid themselves and came back and got more. Greed is a snake that needs to be rooted out and destroyed. Enough is enough.
Maraline Brooks
Hamlet
Oh, by the way - you are very much a worthy opponent. You nailed me earlier on some of the "pap", although I wasn't going to admit it...
Excellent and thoughtful post. Thank you.
And, you are kind of right. I used to be very liberal; libertarian on social issues and liberal on economic issues. In the early 80s time I hated Ronald Reagan, though now I greatly admire him and his presidency. And I proudly called myself a socialist. But, I've changed a lot. I never would have voted for Barack Obama, probably for the ame reason you would not; he is a big spending liberal who definetly has, and will continue, to incrase the federal government's role in our lives and in the economy. I would have voted for McCain, but I could not when he choose Palin as his running mate. My hatred for her is more visceral than intellectual, though I am much much more libertarian on social issues than she.
And you're right, I do not think that Obama is as concerned with what should be his most important job - our national security. He appears much more concerned with growing government, redistributing wealth and increasing entitlements for his constituencies. Heck - he says as much. Do you hear him speak as passionately about protecting our country? I don't. So whether you consider his position on defense as sincere - but seriously flawed, dangerous and flat wrong; or you consider his position one of not really caring if we remain the world's only superpower or not (which I tend to favor), the result is the same. America is weaker. Do you think any of his soothing rhetoric has any positive impact on our relations with others? Or do you believe, as I do, that the Iranians, Chavez, Putin, North Korea are most likely sitting back and roaring with laughter that America voted for someone as dovish as Obama in the age of weapons of mass destruction and militant Islam.
You may be a libertarian, but most of the ones that I know are furious with this big-government philosophy that is encroaching on our freedoms. Strangly, your posts do not reflect any outrage over our current predicament in this regard.
Check...
You are correct. I did infer from your post, and previous posts, that you believe Obama and liberals care nothing about the defense of our country. I wish that I had quoted you and had not paraphrased so strongly. It was a paraphrase, however. That's why I wrote "something along these lines" and "something like that" when referring to your post. Although there is a difference in what you wrote and my praphrase, it's a small point. And I really think that you think that Obama and liberals are deliberately weakening our defense. It's not as if you've been making this point: look Obama, and liberals, are making a reasoned choice; they want to spend less on the military and divert that money for big government social programs. If that's what you've intended to write, then I agree with you. But you've made a much stronger point than that. For example, you did write that Obama is "too busy engaged in remaking this great nation to concern himself with his most serious responsibilty-our safety." You see <--- that. You do think he doesn't care about, or concern himself, with our safey. Don't you? Or was my inference wrong?
But you wrote more than that. You wrote that, "Anyone who had done even a minimal amount of thoughtful rrsearch knows that this administration ain't that concerned with the strength of our military." So, two things; first, anyone who has done research agrees with you. And second, Obama doesn't care about the strength of our military. I'm not making this up. That's pathetic, that's pap, and I didn't misinterpret your point.
And, I want an honest answer from you. Do you think that Obama, Gates, and McCain intentionally weakened our military when they favored cutting the F-22 program? Or do you just disagree with their decision?
Finally, you're convinced that I'm no libertarian? Really, i thought we've gone through this already, idiot.
Well, you're at least, grudgingly, giving me some credit for a little well-informed debate - then you proceed to misrepresent my post in a most dishonest fashion. I did not write that liberals "care nothing about the defense of our country," as you infer - but rather, I wrote the following: "...this administration ain't that concerned with the strength of our military..." and "Liberals do not believe in a strong military..." and "...just research Obama's quotes on military spending. He ain't very excited about it."
Now, any honest observer should acknowledge that you did not do justice to my original points. Just to support these charges, here are a few quotes from our President:
"I will slow our development of future combat systems." (This at a time of increasing Chinese military capabilities and Iranian nukes)
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems." (When the danger from long-range, nuclear-tipped missiles is greater than ever)
"I will not weaponize space." (Although China has no moral qualms about it).
Maybe you consider these actual words "poor evidence" of a tendency to downplay the importance of defense spending - I don't.
A disturbing pattern - and the list goes on of Obama's weak and appeasing statements on defense spending and national security. You might could even grant some justification for fiscal restraint in military matters if he showed the same intensity in domestic spending - would it be pap to state that his administration is the freest-spending in our history - at a time when we can least afford it? Could it be considered even the least bit "illogical" to spend like drunken sailors (no offense to drunken sailors) on things like stimulus checks for 10,000 dead people, $1.15 million for installation of a new guard rail for the non-existent Lake Optima in Oklahoma, turtle tunnels, bridge repair for bridges not in use, etc. etc. WHILE cutting spending for the F-22 - the most effective aircraft in our arsenal?
Shark - you are the one who employs no logic - if you think the free-spending Obama cuts funding for the F-22 program for any other reason than defense spending is secondary to his domestic holy grail, then you sir, are delusional, or a fool, or both.
Yeah,I get the point. You have no clue.
You started by showing that several top Air Force commanders disagreed with Obama's and Gate's decision to end the F-22 prigram. Good. You even pointed out that the information you gave, "represents reseaned debate." Very good. Patriot, You were on a role, and you demonstrated an ability to use the net for rsearch.
But then, as you always do, you strayed into pap land. You wrote something along these lines: anyone who can do research would obviously come to your conclusion that Obama and liberals care nothing about the defense of our country. Or something like that. That takes the pap cake, dude. I think you need to go to school and learn logic and how to avoid common fallacies. Are you sure you're not Sean Hannity?
I'll bet you learned a lot when you researched the F-22 program and discovered why so many people, including prominent conservatives, and people who would never be considered weak on defense, such as Robert Gates and John McCain, sopported ending the program. You must conclude, even though you disagree with the decision, that Obama's decision to end the program did not demonstrate that he is weak on defense. That is my problem with you: you jump to huge unsupported conclusions based on poor evidence, just as you concluded that Dana was a "obviously a socialist", and I was an "establishment liberal". That's stupid, and that's where you go wrong. Are you beginning to understand now, son?
I don't even watch Glenn Beck, although I like him. And you could learn a heck of lot from him on the history and founding of America - if you cared to.
It's amusing that you find it sad "watching an entire party taken over by a news station." You liberals are so frightened and threatened by Fox News, Rush, Beck, Hannity and the Tea partiers precisely because you know that they resonate with an ever-growing number of Americans as they watch this liberty-destroying administration wreak havoc on this great country that we cherish. Just look at the ratings, Dana, Fox News, Rush, and the best-seller lists with all the conservative titles that destroy any liberal rags on the market. We are winning and you know it - and it's killing you. I warned you of the disaster that we are now witnessing..see you in November - maybe on Fox...
Oh yeah - if you think most of the Republican ideas were included in the Healthcare debacle, you are certifiable.
I haven't questioned Obama's citizenship or used Nazi imagery to make my points - that's a leftist tactic - as we see today in the Arizona immigration debate. So, again, you are wrong.
And to close, when will you liberals realize it ain't Rush's, or Beck's or Hannity's ideas that we love - it's something we like to refer to as American exceptionalism and that great freedom charter - the US Constitution - given birth by those dead white guys, those courageous and wise Founders who forsaw the events that we live through day and created a system of government founded on universal principles of faith, freedom, economic liberty, personal responsibility, ordered liberty and time-honored values. Read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, to really learn what we believe and why we believe it. And then, when you're through, and you understand us better, that we're not Rush or Beck clones, but freedom-loving patriots all, then..then...we'll see you in November.
Gates has insisted repeatedly that there is "no military requirement" for more than 187 F-22's (the cap in Obama's '10 fiscal budget). However, numerous air power studies, senior Air Force leaders, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and independent analysts have all documented a military requirement of at least 243 F-22's. This force size is based on the common-sense assumption that the military must be prepared to conduct two nearly simultaneous major combat operations. Gates, inexplicably, wants to jettison this two-war standard.
From 2005-2008, Michael Wynne, secretary of the Air Force, and General Michael Moseley, Air Force Chief of Staff maintained that 381 F-22's were required to "provide adequate capability to meet national security objectives."
Earlier this year, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, stated that the Air Force would like 243 F-22's, 60 more than currently budgeted.
General John Corley, commander of the Air Force's Air Combat Command, wrote in a letter to Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) that "a fleet of 187 F-22's (Obama's number) puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-term.."
General Richard Hawley, former commander of Air Force Air Combat Command, testifed that analysis he took part in showed that "the number required to conduct operations in two major regional contingencies against adversaries who are capable of contesting our control of the air is 381." General Hawley also testified that a fleet level of 187 (again, Obama's number) was based on "no analysis whatsoever" and that the lowest figure that was produced through serious analysis was 260 F-22's..." (39% higher than Obama's number).
That information represents reasoned debate...there is a multitude of military professionals and independent scholars who disagree that our current level of F-22's is inadequate given the age of much of our current aircraft and the capabilities of our enemies.
In addition, permanently closing the F-22 production line would leave the US with just one, largely unproven, fifth-generation aircraft line. Over the past three decades, the US has always maintained two or three activie fighter production lines.
So, dude, get the point? Does that, to use your words, "help you out?" Anyone who had done even a minimal amount of thoughtful research knows that this administration ain't that concerned with the strength of our military. Liberals do not believe in a strong military (see Carter/Clinton). Heck, just research Obama's quotes on military spending. He ain't very excited about it. He doesn't believe in American exceptionalism - anymore than he believes in any other country's exceptionalism. He is too busy engaged in re-making this great nation to concern himself with his most serious responsibility - our safety. And for McCain, while I greatly admire his service to our country and his patriotism, I disagree with him often; one example is his position on enhanced interrogation.
And Obama doesn't need me to make himself look bad - he handles that all by himself. His plummeting poll numbers and desperation race-baiting tactics prove that well enough...
I'm convinced you're no libertarian - Fox/Rush and the other right-wing folks you obviously abhor line up much nicer with libertarianism than the Democrats. As a self-proclaimed libertarian - you are supposed to be all about freedom, dude. So why so defensive of the most liberty-destroying administration in our great nation's history? Or do you even have a clue what you stand for? You, sir, are the propagandist...and not a very good one, I might add...
See 'ya.
Concerning the F-22, Obama did not show weakness. As I pointed out, Sec. of Defense, Gates strongly advocated ending the program. And would you like to read what John Mccain had to say about it?
"It's about whether we will stop doing business as usual, and that is continuing to fund weapons systems that are no longer needed."
You see, that was John McCain. I think he was suggesting it was a continuation of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. Again, it's not about the F-22 program, it's about your inability to stay clear of propaganda.
Maybe you can argue that our presence in Afghanistan is unnecessary - but I have not forgotten that the worst attack on this nation's homeland was launched from that very country 9 years ago - and this occurred precisely because the US was not engaged as we should have been after the Soviets pulled out. To argue that conservatives do not want to bring our troops home is also another absurd position - a position that you kind of just "throw out there, as if it were obvious..."
And to know that the legalization of marijuana is of importance to you, that's speaks volumes about the seriousness of your debate...
Give me a break, Sharkbait...
You said, "Although the Republican Party is being painted as the Party of No by the media and other liberals, they actually have some very good policy ideas on all the issues that have been debated recently. "....
To which I say.... back that up with some actual policies. The republicans had some decent ideas about the health care bill, most of which were added, but at the end of it... they all voted NO! Doesn't stop them from taking credit for the parts they like on the campaign trail. So, please, patriot, name the proposed legislation or alternative bills to those offered up by the democrats. I am almost desperate at this point, to hear a real debate ... to have a real discussion.... which requires the other party to have alternative ideas!
You said, While Beck/Hannity are obviously right-wing conservatives, their information is every bit as credible (and more in my opinion) as say, what you might get from MSNBC, CNN, NYT, WaPost, Huffington, KOS, etc. etc - where many of your positions are argued ad nauseum."
This is proof just how out of touch you, Bonnie and some of the rest of you guys really are. Glenn Beck publicly mocks you all, telling every magazine and newspaper who will have him, he doesn't give a crap about politics, he's in it for the money and Fox News is an entertainment company. If you don't believe Glenn Beck, I guess there is no hope for you believing anyone else. At this point, you should just call the republican party the party of Fox and be done with it.
I find it sad, watching an entire party taken over by a news station. Fox News does not work for republicans, republicans work for Fox News. What does this mean? It means real public policy is not of concern, the real concern is ratings. We all know discourse and fighting, the crazier the better, jacks up ratings... What I find so incredible is how easily republicans have fallen into this without a fight. What does this say about the republican party? Who cares about going about the business of running a country.... questioning Obama's citizenship and painting pictures of Nazi's brings in much higher ratings! Sadly, it does nothing for the country, other than divide it further, no surprise, the more division the higher the ratings.
So here is my new policy, if you can't name the bill, proposed or passed, I don't want to discuss it. It's not worthy of my time!
The irony, and the thing that makes your writing pap, is that you, of all people, accused Dana of parroting. Your writing reads as if it came straight from Fox News, or possiblly talk radio. You have nothing. And, worse, you labeled Dana a socialist, writing that she is "obviously a socialist", because she supports OBama's policies. Finally, without any evidence, as if pulling your debate techniques straight out of Sean Hannity's playbook, you write that I am an establishment liberal. How could you get it so wrong, son? It's not that I'm a liberal. It's that I'm anti-pap.
To end this, and to demonstrate further, that your writing is pap, let's look at a small issue that you brought up in your litany of Obama's offenses. Let's look at the F-22 program. You used it as an example of Obama's weakness on defense. Not fair. He ended the F-22 because he thought it was too expensive and because it was not necessary. Both Sec. of Defense Robert Gates, and John McCain favored ending the F-22 program. Neither, are known as being weak on defense. And they are not the only ones. Many conservatives favored cutting the F-22 program. But instead of taking a balanced and fair approach, you just throw it out there, as if it were obvious, and probably hoping that most people on this board don't read, or that we get our information from FOX News. You couldn't be fair. I don't know, but I can't take twaddle. I can't take that.
One final word on this post (and I'll be happy to debate further). Although the Republican Party is being painted as the Party of No by the media and other liberals, they actually have some very good policy ideas on all the issues that have been debated recently. I do fault them for not aggressively presenting their proposals (although it's difficult in the current media environment for them to get much air time)to the American people. Remember, it's often much more important to defeat bad legislation than to pass good legislation. Government does not, and never will have, all the solutions, or even many of the solutions. Individuals, families, personal responsibility, personal liberty and economic freedom, traditional values, strong national defense and a respect for a lawful and ordered society are the tenets that we must sustain, or this great country is lost.
It would be refreshing if you could simply say, I do not agree with the actions of this administration in regards to (fill in the blank) and I would prefer things to be handled like (fill in the blank). In order to have a real debate, you need alternatives to what is currently happening, real alternatives.
How do you have a straight faced conversation with people who suggest paying a doctor with chickens as a real alternative to "Obamacare"?
How do you carry on a civil and respectful debate with a group of people whose mission is to say no to everything? I've tried and found myself caught up in this insane back and forth that gets nowhere!
If there is to be a real debate, here or more importantly nationally, the party of no needs a better alternative than NO! If you don't want to see financial reform, fine, but at least let's have an open debate about it before you say "HELL NO!" It's obvious something must be done to stop the casino we call Wall Street, how you can support your partying saying No to real debate is beyond me!
As for my actions, I'm not ashamed of being honest and I'm certainly not ashamed of calling out people who use the name of God as some battering ram against things CHRIST stood for! If you are waiting for me to become embarrassed about that, you'll continue to wait.
The Beck's and Palin's of this world are making a fortune off the angry people of this country, but they fail to bring up legitimate alternatives to what is currently being suggested. If you can't come up with an alternative, how can you be trusted to run a government? I genuinely care about what happens to this country, this is not just entertainment to me. It's shameful to see people using the political concern of others as a stepping stone to success in entertainment. Glenn Beck has said it out loud, for the entire world to hear......
"I could give a flying crap about the political process," he deadpanned. "We're an entertainment company." GLENN BECK
So, Patriot, is America political entertainment TV or are you ready to roll up your sleeves and suggest some real answers?
Truth kinda' jars a little, huh? I accuse Dana of being rude...if you've read Bonnie's posts and Dana's last one you can see the difference in tone and manner. And she does parrot liberals' tendencies to hurl names - alot like you do. Son...Pap writer...son again...Hannity Light...Patriot the Parrot...lots of name-calling, but no facts or reasoned argument. So I rest my case that liberals rarely engage in enlightened debate, because the overwhelming number of liberal positions are anathema to common-sense citizens.
I doubt you are anything other that an establishment liberal - notwithstanding your alleged embrace of libertarianism. If you want to argue the merits of my post regarding this disastrous administration, then I'm game. If you want to argue how the movement toward government control/takeover of the automotive, financial and energy industries are laudable expressions of free market capitalism, then good luck, mon ami... Libertarian, my foot...
As for the tea party movement; if it succeeds in being a libertarian movement that seeks to limit the size and scope of government, then I'm all for it. If, at it's core, it's a movement pushed by FOX News idiots like Glenn Beck, or if it's absorbed into the Republican Party, or most importantly, if Sarah "I can't think of a single newspaper that I read" Palin becomes an important leader of it, then I want no part of it.
There's no real doubt about this administration's agenda: nationalization of healthcare; federal takeover of the automotive, financial and energy industries; unlimited growth of government and the permanent installation of the welfare state; diminishing our military might through initiatives such as cancelling the F-22 program and reneging on missile defense in Eastern Europe; embarrassing our allies while cozying up to our enemies; the list is endless. If you support this agenda ...that's certainly your perogative...but then you cannot complain when you are called for being the socialist that you obviously are. Thank God for Americans like Bonnie who still remember the things that made this nation great - limited government, personal responsibility, a strong national defense, traditional values, economic liberty and political freedom. Oh yes...you greatly fear the grass-roots Tea party movement...as well you should. See ya' in November, doll...
Our Founders knew that government without God is destined to fail.
And until we get God back into our government run schools they will continue to fail. Instead of parents in charge now, it's the ACLU - And there has never been an organization more detrimental to the Christian principles on which this nation was founded.
Benjamin Frnklin said: "A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district - all studied and appreciated as they merit - are the principal support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty." Most homes have both but the neglect the "studied and appreciated"
Every time I read some of the statements made on this board, it reminds me of a scripture in Matthew where Jesus instructs us to "Shake the dust off our feet and LEAVE certain houses, cities" (people). Dana's accusations to me of being arrogant and actually staining the cross with my sanctimonious attitude ( which was totally unfounded) made me understand what the scripture in Matt. really meant.
I would rather HE take me out of this world today, than EVER, EVER bring reproach to the Precious Cross of Calvary and I believe you would also.
I said earlier that Dana's comments weren't worth remarking about, but I HAD to say this to YOU: I KNOW you're NOT A LIAR and you certainly have NEVER deserved the insults you've taken on this board simply because you stand for this Country and the principles She was founded on, The Constitution of the United States, You stand for smaller Government, and for the survival of our individual freedoms and for keeping God in America ! If that is a "twisted political view" I also stand with you, guilty as charged.
One more thing Bonnie, every true believer in Christ KNOWS it's IMPOSSIBLE to "DISECT" Him and "use Him" in certain portions of our lives then OMIT Him from others. It can't be done. We're either for Him or against Him and that means in EVERY aspect of our lives, government included ! Like you've said many times....there is no such thing as "separation of church and state". If you believe there is, just ask God, or better yet......like the old song says: "Go and Tell Jesus on ME" for believing that.
I love and respect you Bonnie, keep up the "The Good Fight" !