# Smoking and Obamacare #2



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I just consider myself a Humanist. It may surprise you to know that I am a very active member of a church - a Unitarian Church. I don't know of any school that teaches a religion that is not a private religious school Where do you get your information?


joeysomma said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > According to every dictionary I've encountered atheism does meet criteria/criterion for defining a religion.
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Janeway said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > Atheism is not a religion. It's a belief that there is no god or gods. There's a difference.
> ...


It wasn't fair. It was the result of ignorant, greedy, arrogant men. What was done to American Indians ( not just forcing another set of beliefs on them) is one of the worst pogroms in history which has been ignored and misrepresented in our American history books.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Not fair at all.


Janeway said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > Atheism is not a religion. It's a belief that there is no god or gods. There's a difference.
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> Lol! I just love how so many of you want to put your own definitions to words and meanings to twist it in a fashion that is acceptable to you. You can't just decide to do that!
> 
> You wonder why it is so difficult for many of us to understand what you are saying. You have made up your own constitution for this country and have defined many of the words to mean what you want them to mean. So, not only are you not talking about the U.S. Contitution but you're not even speaking English!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Right again, yarnlady...



theyarnlady said:


> When right becomes wrong and wrong becomes right. This is the state of our nation. No moral compass any more. Just politically correctness. Which to me is a bunch of hog wash. It's just another way of saying someone wants it their way . Our goverment is a good example of this. We in this nation have hit rock bottom. Ever time one turns around it's another wrong way made right. Not to me, or others I know. Know one opens their eyes to what is going on,except the left or so they may think. We will pay for this all of it in the end.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I don't understand what makes you say that you are taxed to support Secular Humanism. The elimination of religious teaching in public schools supports no religious institution. That is appropriate.


thumper5316 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Thumper I would agree. And from my perspective the Commerce Clause suffers the greatest abuse. At some time they decided to use it as a catch all to justify everything as being in The Constitution.

The reason that Obama Care passed the scrutiny of the SC was because Roberts declared it to be a tax.


thumper5316 said:


> Lol! I just love how so many of you want to put your own definitions to words and meanings to twist it in a fashion that is acceptable to you. You can't just decide to do that!
> 
> You wonder why it is so difficult for many of us to understand what you are saying. You have made up your own constitution for this country and have defined many of the words to mean what you want them to mean. So, not only are you not talking about the U.S. Contitution but you're not even speaking English!


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

But mine don't rely on a supernatural being to make me follow them. They don't rely on fear to make me a decent person. I try to do the kind, considerate and helpful thing because it is the best way for me to live.


joeysomma said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> But mine don't rely on a supernatural being to make me follow them. They don't rely on fear to make me a decent person. I try to do the kind, considerate and helpful thing because it is the best way for me to live.
> 
> 
> joeysomma said:
> ...


Mine does not rely on a human nature, or any othe thing but the 2,000 year or more it is called the Bible. Why do you think it has lasted this long????


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Much of the evil in the world ( think about the wars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc.) happened as a result of organized religion. Many today believe that their set of beliefs (religion?) is the ONLY way. Anything done for, or in the name of god is good and will be rewarded. I reject that approach. Organized religion may claim to teach values, and morality but even the religious institutions are guilty of violating their teachings. Nothing has changed over the decades and across the continents, except it is easier to learn about the atrocities.



pardoquilts said:


> But mine don't rely on a supernatural being to make me follow them. They don't rely on fear to make me a decent person. I try to do the kind, considerate and helpful thing because it is the best way for me to live.
> 
> 
> joeysomma said:
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Schools teach only evolution only in schools. That is a secular theory. Secularism is a religion.

Many public schools here have 'prayer rooms' set aside for the Muslim students. However, Christian students are not allowed to pray in school. Is religious intollerance and bigotry at work here?



pardoquilts said:


> I don't understand what makes you say that you are taxed to support Secular Humanism. The elimination of religious teaching in public schools supports no religious institution. That is appropriate.
> 
> 
> thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

According to a news source you probably agree with, 12% of the U.S. Military is Hispanic. That is up from 3% in 1971. According to the Heartland INstitute, Hispanics make up 17% of people who receive any kind of government support. And if they are citizens, they must have passed the citizenship tests, which are given in English! What bigoted tripe!


Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > According to the U. S, Census Bureau, there are 50.5 million people of Hispanic origin in the U.S. of those, 23.7 are naturalized citizens. That means they studied, they took the test, they passed, and they were sworn in as U.S. citizens.
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

That is only one word in the defining of the word 'religion'. Definitions #2 and #3 still apply, in their entirety, to you. So, you still practice a religion of sorts. It's just the religion of 'You'.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I just don't think that the religion of 'You' is a sound basis for the rule of law and taxation for a country.



pardoquilts said:


> But mine don't rely on a supernatural being to make me follow them. They don't rely on fear to make me a decent person. I try to do the kind, considerate and helpful thing because it is the best way for me to live.
> 
> 
> joeysomma said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Evolution is a scientific fact, not a secular theory. I'd lik ethe names of public schools that have "prayer rooms: in them for any kind of religion. It is certainly not permitted to have Christian prayers in public schools - nor Muslim prayers, nor Jewish prayers, etc which are said for everyone to have to listen to.


thumper5316 said:


> Schools teach only evolution only in schools. That is a secular theory. Secularism is a religion.
> 
> Many public schools here have 'prayer rooms' set aside for the Muslim students. However, Christian students are not allowed to pray in school. Is religious intollerance and bigotry at work here?
> 
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> Schools teach only evolution only in schools. That is a secular theory. Secularism is a religion.
> 
> Many public schools here have 'prayer rooms' set aside for the Muslim students. However, Christian students are not allowed to pray in school. Is religious intollerance and bigotry at work here?
> 
> ...


Schools can teach ABOUT religion, but they certainly don't teach religion. Secular humanism, whatever that is, is not taught in the schools.
Evolution is science.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

You can put whatever negative twist you would like to on it. I have put my time, treasure and talent into a business which helps people around the world. I participate in my community. I think I live a good life, and I don't need a particular book to tell me how to do that. Laws should be based on what will help all of us live together in peace and harmony. Taxation should be fair for all, and that means I don't have to pay taxes for promoting any religion.


thumper5316 said:


> That is only one word in the defining of the word 'religion'. Definitions #2 and #3 still apply, in their entirety, to you. So, you still practice a religion of sorts. It's just the religion of 'You'.
> 
> I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I just don't think that the religion of 'You' is a sound basis for the rule of law and taxation for a country.
> 
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> Schools teach only evolution only in schools. That is a secular theory. Secularism is a religion.
> 
> Many public schools here have 'prayer rooms' set aside for the Muslim students. However, Christian students are not allowed to pray in school. Is religious intollerance and bigotry at work here?
> 
> ...


I so agree with you the only religion that now that is not tolerated is Christians. Starting to feel like the jewish race in Hitlers time on this earth. Must say though as to taxing churches if done all should be tax, not just one belief.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Pardo, you're not looking at the evidence again. Evolution is a scientific _theory_ supported by evidence that has been found. The National Academy of Sciences even states that is both theory and fact. I've not found one reputable site that states unequivocally, evolution as fact.

Just because a theory hasn't been proven wrong does not make it axiomatic.



pardoquilts said:


> Evolution is a scientific fact, not a secular theory. I'd lik ethe names of public schools that have "prayer rooms: in them for any kind of religion. It is certainly not permitted to have Christian prayers in public schools - nor Muslim prayers, nor Jewish prayers, etc which are said for everyone to have to listen to.
> 
> 
> thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

It would seem to me that teaching ABOUT religion in a public school would be dangerous. It is highly unlikely that any teacher - who is not educated in the tenets of all religions- should be allowed to 'teach' about any. Here is where ignorance and bias creep in, even if it is unknowingly happening. Most adherents to a particular religion believe in that religion and are not well enough informed to present others in a fair light. Religion does not belong in schools. Teaching ethics and morality, which most religions claim to teach, would not be unacceptable to me as long as no particular religion were cited.
Even in college level classes courses on Comparative Religions can be questioned about bias, depending on the profession.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

My husband is a scientist and works with theories all the time. Very few scientists believe that evolution isn't true. If the National Academy says it is a fact then what is your problem?


thumper5316 said:


> Pardo, you're not looking at the evidence again. Evolution is a scientific _theory_ supported by evidence that has been found. The National Academy of Sciences even states that is both theory and fact. I've not found one reputable site that states unequivocally, evolution as fact.
> 
> Just because a theory hasn't been proven wrong does not make it axiomatic.
> 
> ...


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> You will believe in HIM one day when you are bowing before Him.


I'll take my chances, thanks. Can't read any more of this.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> Schools teach only evolution only in schools. That is a secular theory. Secularism is a religion.
> 
> Many public schools here have 'prayer rooms' set aside for the Muslim students. However, Christian students are not allowed to pray in school. Is religious intollerance and bigotry at work here?
> 
> @ Thumper5316 - If a religious group needs a prayer room, it should NOT be in our public schools. Yes, intolerance and bigotry is at work. We bend over backwards to be politically correct, all the while insulting or harming another group. Parents have historically sent their children to private schools of their favored religious persuasion; others went to religious study groups in after school programs. There is no reason or need to grant rights to groups to the exclusion of others. Keep religion out of schools.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Misquote much? I stated, and _I quote_, "The National Academy of Sciences even states that is both theory and fact." How did you get their saying that it's fact alone?



pardoquilts said:


> My husband is a scientist and works with theories all the time. Very few scientists believe that evolution isn't true. If the National Academy says it is a fact then what is your problem?
> 
> 
> thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

momeee said:


> It would seem to me that teaching ABOUT religion in a public school would be dangerous. It is highly unlikely that any teacher - who is not educated in the tenets of all religions- should be allowed to 'teach' about any. Here is where ignorance and bias creep in, even if it is unknowingly happening. Most adherents to a particular religion believe in that religion and are not well enough informed to present others in a fair light. Religion does not belong in schools. Teaching ethics and morality, which most religions claim to teach, would not be unacceptable to me as long as no particular religion were cited.
> Even in college level classes courses on Comparative Religions can be questioned about bias, depending on the profession.


I agree with what you have posted. I have been trying to learn about others beliefs and why they believe as they do. But in turn I do feel as of this time in the United States any form of Christian belief is seen as a thing to not be allowed in any form .


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Anyone who wants to pray in school can. They can pray at their desks, at recess, walking to class, etc. they just can't do it aloud.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Not fair at all.
> 
> 
> Janeway said:
> ...


Of course it wasn't fair. What is your point? Do you think I'm condoning genocide? I think we can blame religion for that particular bit of persecution.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

I agree whole-heartedly on your approach as stated here.



pardoquilts said:


> You can put whatever negative twist you would like to on it. I have put my time, treasure and talent into a business which helps people around the world. I participate in my community. I think I live a good life, and I don't need a particular book to tell me how to do that. Laws should be based on what will help all of us live together in peace and harmony. Taxation should be fair for all, and that means I don't have to pay taxes for promoting any religion.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

My husband is a physicist. He works every day with particles that are infinitesimal, far too small to be seen. He is able to theorize about their behavior and properties because of the evidence they leave on instruments. This is how science works.We have come a long way in the last few centuries - did you know that even though there is no way to actually prove it, we are certain that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around?


thumper5316 said:


> Misquote much? I stated, and _I quote_, "The National Academy of Sciences even states that is both theory and fact." How did you get their saying that it's fact alone?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

That's my point and a point which you just don't seem to want to understand. Just because something may be a well documented and unproven theory does not make it fact. It is still a theory. As much as you might want to say evolution is fact it simply is *not*.



pardoquilts said:


> My husband is a physicist. He works every day with particles that are infinitesimal, far too small to be seen. He is able to theorize about their behavior and properties because of the evidence they leave on instruments. This is how science works.We have come a long way in the last few centuries - did you know that even though there is no way to actually prove it, we are certain that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around?
> 
> 
> thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > It would seem to me that teaching ABOUT religion in a public school would be dangerous. It is highly unlikely that any teacher - who is not educated in the tenets of all religions- should be allowed to 'teach' about any. Here is where ignorance and bias creep in, even if it is unknowingly happening. Most adherents to a particular religion believe in that religion and are not well enough informed to present others in a fair light. Religion does not belong in schools. Teaching ethics and morality, which most religions claim to teach, would not be unacceptable to me as long as no particular religion were cited.
> ...


That is because for decades the only holidays(celebrations, songs, parties, decorations, etc.) revolved largely around Christian holidays. Some of this was due to ignorance, some simply because the classes consisted of just Christian children and the teachers/administrators did not even have to consider any other. (When I first began my teaching career- a million years ago- in a middle-class white community I never thought about it until a parent approached me to tell me that her family were members of Jehovah's Witness, and I saw that I needed to revise my approach to art projects, celebrations, etc. As time went on the communities I taught in were more diverse and parents began speaking up to make sure that other beliefs weren't disparaged, or ignored around holiday times. My students and I learned a lot from those parents who shared some of their traditions, foods and songs, without talking about their beliefs. My school district, in MA was very sensitive to this issue and tried to respect all, without allowing religion in the classes. In being sensitive to some, often we become insensitive to others...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

And you want me to believe that I should believe in a book which has been translated many times, which you claim is the word of your god - but you sure can't prove such a god exists! Evolution is science. Creationism is religion. We cannot be teaching religion in our schools.


thumper5316 said:


> That's my point and a point which you just don't seem to want to understand. Just because something may be a well documented and unproven theory does not make it fact. It is still a theory. As much as you might want to say evolution is fact it simply is *not*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Then evolution should also go.



pardoquilts said:


> And you want me to believe that I should believe in a book which has been translated many times, which you claim is the word of your god - but you sure can't prove such a god exists! Evolution is science. Creationism is religion. We cannot be teaching religion in our schools.
> 
> 
> thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > thumper5316 said:
> ...


Support is not the same thing as teashing. Teaching is informing, not adocating.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I repeat - Evolution is science, creationism is religion. We do not teach religion in our public schools, but we do teach science. Teach whatever nonsense you like in private schools.


thumper5316 said:


> Then evolution should also go.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > According to the U. S, Census Bureau, there are 50.5 million people of Hispanic origin in the U.S. of those, 23.7 are naturalized citizens. That means they studied, they took the test, they passed, and they were sworn in as U.S. citizens.
> ...


Do you think all Hispanis want free things? How can you generalize like that? I am sure you can find many who are productuve American citizens.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Then what's to stop them from "informing" students about creationism?



rocky1991 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Because creationism is religion, not science.


thumper5316 said:


> Then what's to stop them from "informing" students about creationism?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> Then evolution should also go.
> 
> Are you actually real? This has to be a joke. I'm looking for the hidden camera.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > But mine don't rely on a supernatural being to make me follow them. They don't rely on fear to make me a decent person. I try to do the kind, considerate and helpful thing because it is the best way for me to live.
> ...


FEAR!! Keep the people living in fear and dn't educated them. That's the nature of religion. That's why we have such a problem with climate change today...the religious right does not beleive in science, therefore it does not exist......even though 99% of scientists say it is happening.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Genetics and DNA pretty much equally support both creationism and evolution. If we do not teach religion in our public schools but do teach science then they should both be included or both go. Six of one; half-dozen of the other. You just want to have it all your way.



pardoquilts said:


> I repeat - Evolution is science, creationism is religion. We do not teach religion in our public schools, but we do teach science. Teach whatever nonsense you like in private schools.
> 
> 
> thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> Genetics and DNA pretty much equally support both creationism and evolution. If we do not teach religion in our public schools but do teach science then they should both be included or both go. Six of one; half-dozen of the other. You just want to have it all your way.
> ----------------
> No, they don't "pretty much" support creationism. And please remind me who wants their own way. Creationism is part of religion, not science.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> Do you want a private business to guide your life by their religeous beliefs? I am not a Jehovah's Witness and I have had 3 transfusions. If my employer was a JW I would certainly have died. I thought we had religeous freedom and freedon from religion in this country? Why are "religeous" men using viagra, I thought sex was supposed to be for procreation not recreation?


Are you saying that you only have sex to reproduce? That you have never enjoyed the act purely for its pleasure? How sad.

You would not have necessarily died if JW were your employers. You have the choice not to accept the health insurance they provide and can always purchase your own or you could have paid for the transfusion yourself. You do have choices which you seem to omit.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you want a private business to guide your life by their religeous beliefs? I am not a Jehovah's Witness and I have had 3 transfusions. If my employer was a JW I would certainly have died. I thought we had religeous freedom and freedon from religion in this country? Why are "religeous" men using viagra, I thought sex was supposed to be for procreation not recreation?
> ...


They like to do that...a lot.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Thumper
Go to this site and read about what "theory" is in everyday life and what "scientific theory" is.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html


----------



## Omnivore (Apr 16, 2012)

The dinosaurs were here (some of them still are eg. the Tuatara lizard) for much longer than we have been, and now are pretty-much vanished, or incorporated into lizards and birds. There's no reason to think we will be here forever, as favoured creatures. I hope we make it to other planets.

People use religion to put themselves above others and use it to justify treating those others badly. A typical example is The Crusades - a cynical plan of invasion, rape, theft, butchery, against an intelligent civilized people who did them no harm and who tolerated other religions.

Hmm - sound familiar brought to the present day? Let's see; what have other countries got that we want to get our greedy hands on - let's cook up some atrocity propaganda so our young men will be manipulated into going to battle and give their lives for the greedy ones in power, and say "god's on our side" as per usual.

"Thou shalt not kill" --- hohum --- zzz


aw9358 said:


> Please stop calling atheism a religion. It's not. I reject all religion. I believe (if I'm allowed to put it that way) that we are here by accident and there is no afterlife. This is it. We humans have the greatest power over the earth and all of its inhabitants. Its future is in our hands and no-one else's. I'm not going to found a sect based on those principles.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

I did. You seem to have missed THE FIRST SENTENCE.



alcameron said:


> Thumper
> Go to this site and read about what "theory" is in everyday life and what "scientific theory" is.
> http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

aw9358 said:


> "Mubarak was a friend of the USA. He was important in keeping the peace in the Middle East."
> 
> Thank you, Joeysomma, for encapsulating US foreign policy in such an honest way. I have been waiting for this from your leaders for many years.
> 
> ...


Whenever we try to bring democracy to other countries, all we get is bombarded with all kinds of hate and are told to stay away from them. It's a no win situation for us. I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of the USA, but it is not unexpected.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> I did. You seem to have missed THE FIRST SENTENCE.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Read past the first sentence.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > "Mubarak was a friend of the USA. He was important in keeping the peace in the Middle East."
> ...


Please tell me to which countries the US has tried to bring democracy. It's not Chile, Indonesia, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador or Panama. I'm at a loss.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Again, you must have missed where I already said that I read it. Do you often leave out portions of what people say in an attempt to make them look bad?



alcameron said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > I did. You seem to have missed THE FIRST SENTENCE.
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you want a private business to guide your life by their religeous beliefs? I am not a Jehovah's Witness and I have had 3 transfusions. If my employer was a JW I would certainly have died. I thought we had religeous freedom and freedon from religion in this country? Why are "religeous" men using viagra, I thought sex was supposed to be for procreation not recreation?
> ...


You are putting words in m y mouth, I never said I believed sex is only for procreation. Sex is fun........just thought that you reliigious types thought sex is only for procreation.........thus no contraceptives, and G-d forbid abortions,and heaven forbid let us not teach our children about sex and contraception, just tell them about astinence and put chastity belts on the girls, not to worry about the boys. Notice that girls have abortions and nothing is ever mentioned about the boys?
As for blood transfusions being covered by insurance or not. You presume everyone has enough money to purchase extra insurance. Isn't that a rather presumptious of you, What if I didn't have the money to pay for insurance or transfusions? Do you wanst to help? That is ythe problem, many people do not have the money to ay for healthcare. Your answer would be to let them die. Sweet of you.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I wasn't,t trying to omit anything you said. I can't believe you read anything but the first sentence. There is no scientific evidence supporting creationism. That's why is shouldn't be taught in the public schools and why it can't be given credence as scientific theory.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Would a more correct sentence from you read 'there is no scientific evidence supporting creationism that I accept'?

There are articles out there on exactly that subject if you'd care to take a look. But then I don't think that you would give them any credence whatsoever.



alcameron said:


> I wasn't,t trying to omit anything you said. I can't believe you read anything but the first sentence. There is no scientific evidence supporting creationism. That's why is shouldn't be taught in the public schools and why it can't be given credence as scientific theory.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Not to change the subject, but there is always something going on in DC, especially when it concerns obamacare.

More Obama Cronyism?

SallyObama.jpgBeing a member of the Presidents inner circle really does pay off. In another appalling example of government corruption, President Obamas nominee to head the Department of the Interior, Sally Jewell, received an ObamaCare waiver in 2011 for her outdoor clothing company  an inexcusable exemption for a company that was supposed to be the model for small businesses under the health care law. Contact your representative to express your displeasure, or pleasure...

It seems all that talk about ObamaCare helping workers was little more than empty rhetoric. Nearly 20% of the original waivers were given to businesses in Nancy Pelosis district, with several prominent labor unions and financial corporations receiving them as well. As the average American business struggles to cope with the burdens imposed by ObamaCare, politicians in Washington are giving their buddies and political donors a free pass.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Why are "religeous" men using viagra, I thought sex was supposed to be for procreation not recreation?

Are these not your words? 



You are putting words in m y mouth, I never said I believed sex is only for procreation. Sex is fun........just thought that you reliigious types thought sex is only for procreation.........thus no contraceptives, and G-d forbid abortions,and heaven forbid let us not teach our children about sex and contraception, just tell them about astinence and put chastity belts on the girls, not to worry about the boys. Notice that girls have abortions and nothing is ever mentioned about the boys?

I'm not a religious type, so don't put words in my mouth. I'm pro choice, I just don't want to pay for someone's abortion. Here I am referring to the girls and women who became pregnant through consensual sex not rape or incest. The fathers of the unborn should be held accountable. It takes 2 to make the baby. 


As for blood transfusions being covered by insurance or not. You presume everyone has enough money to purchase extra insurance. Isn't that a rather presumptious of you, What if I didn't have the money to pay for insurance or transfusions? Do you wanst to help? That is ythe problem, many people do not have the money to ay for healthcare. Your answer would be to let them die. Sweet of you.

I don't presume that everyone has money to purchase insurance. There you go again, putting words into my mouth. I was stating that you have choices, which you conveniently omitted. 

It was very sweet of you to presume that I want everyone that can't afford insurance to just die. You think such nice thoughts about fellow humans.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I read the first sentence - and the rest of the article! "The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence." I strongly suggest that you read all of it. What it says is that evolution is supported by so much evidence that it doesn't need to be proven any longer. Picking and choosing only the sentences that support your position makes your argument meaningless.



thumper5316 said:


> I did. You seem to have missed THE FIRST SENTENCE.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

momeee said:


> Not to change the subject, but there is always something going on in DC, especially when it concerns obamacare.
> 
> More Obama Cronyism?
> 
> ...


What a surprise that is??? Thanks for sharing what some will ignore, or just say you are wrong. Good old Pelosi's if you want to know what is in the Obama plan pass the bill. she must have added some things in the end hey, or did she get all from Obama for her kind words????


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I certainly would not give them credence as they are not based on actual science!


thumper5316 said:


> Would a more correct sentence from you read 'there is no scientific evidence supporting creationism that I accept'?
> 
> There are articles out there on exactly that subject if you'd care to take a look. But then I don't think that you would give them any credence whatsoever.
> 
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I think I'll go to Costco.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Why are "religeous" men using viagra, I thought sex was supposed to be for procreation not recreation?
> 
> Are these not your words?
> 
> ...


What is my choice if I do not have money??


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > Why are "religeous" men using viagra, I thought sex was supposed to be for procreation not recreation?
> ...


You are not pro-choice.......I believe that every woman has the right to an abortion, even if the sex was consensual
As far as paying for it...tax payer money does not pay for abortions,


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

That's not how any scientists that I know work. Picking and choosing only the reality that support your position makes your argument not only meaningless but irrational as well. To be honest, I'm surprised that someone, such as yourself, is so closed minded to ideas that may not agree with yours.



pardoquilts said:


> What it says is that evolution is supported by so much evidence that it doesn't need to be proven any longer. Picking and choosing only the sentences that support your position makes your argument meaningless.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

This is reality. Evolution is supported by so much evidence that it does not need to be proven any longer. That's what the article you referenced said. Creationism is not scientific fact. It is a silly notion based on nothing. Many primitive societies have similar myths. It doesn't make them reality.


thumper5316 said:


> That's not how any scientists that I know work. Picking and choosing only the reality that support your position makes your argument not only meaningless but irrational as well. To be honest, I'm surprised that someone, such as yourself, is so closed minded to ideas that may not agree with yours.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

momeee said:


> Not to change the subject, but there is always something going on in DC, especially when it concerns obamacare.
> 
> More Obama Cronyism?
> 
> ...


Actuallly REI got a waiver because they were doing a very good job with their healthcare plan. Part time and full time employees get health insurance. Kind of a model for other corporations, don't you think? so much for cronyism.......duh!!http://washingtonexaminer.com/interior-secretary-nominee-sally-jewell-received-obamacare-waiver-for-rei/article/2520821


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

What let facts interfere with a good conspiracy theory?


rocky1991 said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > Not to change the subject, but there is always something going on in DC, especially when it concerns obamacare.
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > Not to change the subject, but there is always something going on in DC, especially when it concerns obamacare.
> ...


Please check your facts. REI got the waiver because they already give their emplyees, parttime and full time health insurance.http://washingtonexaminer.com/interior-secretary-nominee-sally-jewell-received-obamacare-waiver-for-rei/article/2520821


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Thank you for your replies to my post on REI. Obviously I did not know the other side, and it looks like they are doing a great job and their employees will be covered under this waiver until 2014. 
I've been reading a number of articles where unions have gotten waivers, then requested some subsidies...and my antennae is always up when I think of big donors and pay backs. Call me suspicious. Perhaps. Time will tell. 
Again thank you for correcting my misinterpretation.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

momeee said:


> Thank you for your replies to my post on REI. Obviously I did not know the other side, and it looks like they are doing a great job and their employees will be covered under this waiver until 2014.
> I've been reading a number of articles where unions have gotten waivers, then requested some subsidies...and my antennae is always up when I think of big donors and pay backs. Call me suspicious. Perhaps. Time will tell.
> Again thank you for correcting my misinterpretation.


When it comes to politics there is n telling what is really going on. When you get to be a congressan, senator, or president.............you OWE big time. Paybacvk is Hell!
No one is free from a certain amount of cronyism, Reps and Dems alike. I suppose it depends on whose team you are on.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Rocky, your reply made me think of a new TV series that i just started watching. Have you, on any other KPs been aware of a new TV series called "House of Cards"? It is on Netflix and all the episodes are available from when the series was put on there...sort of an experiment to see whether people prefer watching one episode at a time or multiple (or all) at fewer sittings. It is all about the power, power plays, payback, and corruption in DC. Of course it is fictional drama...but entertaining.


rocky1991 said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for your replies to my post on REI. Obviously I did not know the other side, and it looks like they are doing a great job and their employees will be covered under this waiver until 2014.
> ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> According to a news source you probably agree with, 12% of the U.S. Military is Hispanic. That is up from 3% in 1971. According to the Heartland INstitute, Hispanics make up 17% of people who receive any kind of government support. And if they are citizens, they must have passed the citizenship tests, which are given in English! What bigoted tripe!
> 
> 
> Janeway said:
> ...


Para, are you Hispanic?


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I always said Obama needed to go.


about a thousand times! no one is listening!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > Then evolution should also go.
> ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > Genetics and DNA pretty much equally support both creationism and evolution. If we do not teach religion in our public schools but do teach science then they should both be included or both go. Six of one; half-dozen of the other. You just want to have it all your way.
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

i'm not, but what difference does that make?


Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > According to a news source you probably agree with, 12% of the U.S. Military is Hispanic. That is up from 3% in 1971. According to the Heartland INstitute, Hispanics make up 17% of people who receive any kind of government support. And if they are citizens, they must have passed the citizenship tests, which are given in English! What bigoted tripe!
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Nice myth - just not true.


Janeway said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

I suggest reading or listening to this man, John Clayton. Fascinating. http://www.doesgodexist.org/AboutClayton/AboutClayton.html


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

The whole point of faith is that it does not require or want proof. It's faith. Science relies on the evidence it can see. That's the difference. You have faith in a supernatural being and I don't. We will never convince each other, but really there is no need for this nasty, unchristian tone. I do not need a "cookie". I assume that is what we in the undeveloped world call a biscuit.

And yes, I did have an excellent state education, untainted by the rantings of religious zealotry. Having been brought up as a Methodist (one sect that I was grateful displayed a lot more christian charity than I have observed here), I do know whereof I speak. 

Finally, I thought I was going to rise above this childishness, but do you need a valium?


----------



## Bombshellknits (Feb 2, 2013)

We are self employed and must buy our own health insurance. We currently pay $350 a month for a $10,000 deductible. Yeah, baby! Before Obama care it was worse. I used to have high blood pressure (til I started knitting), tho my weight is where it should be, and cholesterol is too, they (a different insurer) wanted $800 a month for a $5000 deductible. And we have to ask about 15 times to make sure it covers us 24 hours a day, because if the loophole of "you are at work" kicks in, they don't pay. Now, we don't pay Workers Comp on ourselves, just on our employees. 

We also had one major insurer who cancelled us after 3 minor claims. Seriously, all 3 totaled about $5000. They sent me a letter and said we were cancelled. I stopped payment on the check. Then, they called me and said that my husband called to re-instate us (which he didn't) and that we were cancelled for non payment. They said they would be happy to re-instate us, the rate had now doubled. 

I understand everyone's frustration, here, but, I'm just giving you a glimpse of my reality. 

And, here is the LAST eye opener. Because of our high deductible, we just say we are self pay. We give them our card, but, say we will pay. That normally gives me at least a 10% discount if I write a check right then and there. 

It's out of control. You didn't see insurance companies taking a bail out, did ya?


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Have all the "faith" you want. Believe in whatever religion you want. Plants also evolve. Minerals are the result of changes in the earth, combined with various chemical components, under different pressures and upheavals of the earth. The rest of your comments have nothing to do with science and everything to do with your religious beliefs. There is no evidence to support the mythology of Creation. Every primitive tribe has a creation story, because they don't have the wherewithall to study and understand the world around them. We have science, which does make it possible to observe phenomena, to understand how things work. Your insistence on Creation as a viable substitute for solid scientific evidence, no matter what your minor in college was, proves only that you have a religious belief that flies in the face of scientific discovery. Believe what you like. There is no legitimate science that supports Creationism. No scientist I know, and I know a lot of them, believes in Creationism.


joeysomma said:


> It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than Creation. There is more evidence to support Creation.
> 
> Have you studied the chromsomes in the cells of animals. If there is one chromosome different in the cell it is a different animal. How can evolution explain that?
> 
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Men do not have one lless rib than women. That is a myth perpetrated in the Middle Ages. I think we've moved past that time.


Janeway said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Your understanding of Evolution is fuzzy, at best. It is far more complicated than that. Over millions of years life forms changed - and still do - due to climate change, availability of nourishment, many factors. Evolution applies to living things, and all of those things change - or evolve. Plants don't change into different kinds of plants. They may become taller, or develop thicker leaves, or change color, etc., which accounts for the fact that there are species of willow trees that live in the far north, near the North Pole, which are about an inch tall. They don't look like our common perception of a weeping willow tree, but they are of the same basic cellular structure. They developed differently to accomodate their needs in the cold, harsh climate of the far north. Bats my be quite small in one part of the world, quite large in another. Again, they are all bats - they are just variations of the same creature, adapted to their living conditions.


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said, "Minerals are the result of changes in the earth, combined with various chemical components, under different pressures and upheavals of the earth."
> 
> Gold will always be gold, silver will always be silver, oxygen will always be oxygen. Carbon Dioxide will always be Carbon Dioxide. Where is evolution?
> 
> How did one plant change into a different kind? Where is your evidence for evolution in plants? I have never seen any evidence.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Please tell me what you think Evolution means?


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Your understanding of Evolution is fuzzy, at best. It is far more complicated than that. Over millions of years life forms changed - and still do - due to climate change, availability of nourishment, many factors. Evolution applies to living things, and all of those things change - or evolve. Plants don't change into different kinds of plants. They may become taller, or develop thicker leaves, or change color, etc., which accounts for the fact that there are species of willow trees that live in the far north, near the North Pole, which are about an inch tall. They don't look like our common perception of a weeping willow tree, but they are of the same basic cellular structure. They developed differently to accomodate their needs in the cold, harsh climate of the far north. Bats my be quite small in one part of the world, quite large in another. Again, they are all bats - they are just variations of the same creature, adapted to their living conditions.
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Janeway said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than Creation. There is more evidence to support Creation.
> 
> Have you studied the chromsomes in the cells of animals. If there is one chromosome different in the cell it is a different animal. How can evolution explain that?
> 
> ...


MIstakes in nature.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> The whole point of faith is that it does not require or want proof. It's faith. Science relies on the evidence it can see. That's the difference. You have faith in a supernatural being and I don't. We will never convince each other, but really there is no need for this nasty, unchristian tone. I do not need a "cookie". I assume that is what we in the undeveloped world call a biscuit.
> 
> And yes, I did have an excellent state education, untainted by the rantings of religious zealotry. Having been brought up as a Methodist (one sect that I was grateful displayed a lot more christian charity than I have observed here), I do know whereof I speak.
> 
> Finally, I thought I was going to rise above this childishness, but do you need a valium?


I had yo take bible study in college.......that's when I became an unbeliever.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

And you don't thnk there is evidence of that? There are many fossils which show that fish did indeed change into air breathing forms, which eventually EVOLVED into birds. There are discoveries which show the EVOLUTION of one apelike form into a more erect creature. What kind of evidence do you need - the fossils and skeletons are there.


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Please tell me what you think Evolution means?
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

And now you tell us, pardo. What definition have you given the word evolution?



joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Please tell me what you think Evolution means?
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said, "Minerals are the result of changes in the earth, combined with various chemical components, under different pressures and upheavals of the earth."
> 
> Gold will always be gold, silver will always be silver, oxygen will always be oxygen. Carbon Dioxide will always be Carbon Dioxide. Where is evolution?
> 
> How did one plant change into a different kind? Where is your evidence for evolution in plants? I have never seen any evidence.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Pardo, those are just theories. That doesn't make them facts.



pardoquilts said:


> And you don't thnk there is evidence of that? There are many fossils which show that fish did indeed change into air breathing forms, which eventually EVOLVED into birds. There are discoveries which show the EVOLUTION of one apelike form into a more erect creature. What kind of evidence do you need - the fossils and skeletons are there.
> 
> 
> joeysomma said:
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> Pardo, those are just theories. That doesn't make them facts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :XD: :thumbup:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Your understanding of Evolution is fuzzy, at best. It is far more complicated than that. Over millions of years life forms changed - and still do - due to climate change, availability of nourishment, many factors. Evolution applies to living things, and all of those things change - or evolve. Plants don't change into different kinds of plants. They may become taller, or develop thicker leaves, or change color, etc., which accounts for the fact that there are species of willow trees that live in the far north, near the North Pole, which are about an inch tall. They don't look like our common perception of a weeping willow tree, but they are of the same basic cellular structure. They developed differently to accomodate their needs in the cold, harsh climate of the far north. Bats my be quite small in one part of the world, quite large in another. Again, they are all bats - they are just variations of the same creature, adapted to their living conditions.
> 
> 
> joeysomma said:
> ...


Paro:
:shock: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :?: :?: :?: Paro :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :XD: :XD: :XD: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I simply cannot believe this discussion. There is solid scientific evidence that supports evolution. It is accepted by the majority of thinking, educated people on earth. I hope no one takes a walk today and falls off the edge of the earth.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Thank you, alcameron. As a thinking, educated person, I do accept that there is evidence that supports evolution. I also accept that there is evidence that supports creationism. I prefer to keep an open mind.



alcameron said:


> I simply cannot believe this discussion. There is solid scientific evidence that supports evolution. It is accepted by the majority of thinking, educated people on earth. I hope no one takes a walk today and falls off the edge of the earth.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

What kind of evidence would you like? Fossils are bones, skeletons, sometimes feathers or scales, which have hardened over the millenia and have been found by scientists who look at them, use their scientific skills, carbon date the fossilized bones and determined when they actually lived, what the full skeleton looked like, how they relate to the other information available to them in the ever increasing body of actual knowledge. It is my understanding of scientific methods and my ability to read published information that make be know that evolution is a fact. I repeat - Creationism is not a scientific theory - it is a religious belief, based on a book of much translated stories which has absolutely no basis in fact.


joeysomma said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > Pardo, those are just theories. That doesn't make them facts.
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Please tell me what scientific evidence there is that supports Creationism.


thumper5316 said:


> Thank you, alcameron. As a thinking, educated person, I do accept that there is evidence that supports evolution. I also accept that there is evidence that supports creationism. I prefer to keep an open mind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]


thumper5316 said:


> And now you tell us, pardo. What definition have you given the word evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

And yur point is? Do you honestly think that what we see today is exactly what people, dogs, roses or whatever, looked like 40 billion years ago?


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Please tell me what scientific evidence there is that supports Creationism.
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Chromosomes for starters. Humans have a set number of pairs which is 23. Apes have 24. Sheep have 27.

With manipulation, breeding has only been able to make a better sheep. It's still a sheep.

Scientists know what makes up certain cells. They still have no clue how to make a living cell.

There are so many things we don't know yet and for me to accept things as 'fact' is to close my mind to what might be truth.



pardoquilts said:


> Please tell me what scientific evidence there is that supports Creationism.
> 
> 
> thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

It still can't make a bird out of a fish.



pardoquilts said:


> Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]
> 
> 
> thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

That is not proof of Creation. It is a statement of what we don't know right now. People used to believe the earth was flat. We don't believe that any longer because we learned something different. People used to believe that bleeding someone would cure them of illnesses. Today we use antibiotics for the same purpose because we learned that bleeding doesn'thave anything to do with curing disease. Science is constantly increasing our knowledge and understanding of the world. What we don't know now we may know tomorrow. That is science, not Creationism.


thumper5316 said:


> Chromosomes for starters. Humans have a set number of pairs which is 23. Apes have 24. Sheep have 27.
> 
> With manipulation, breeding has only been able to make a better sheep. It's still a sheep.
> 
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Scientists don't actually say they can tell exactly who DNA belongs to. They say that the percentage of matches in two samples are so close to each other that the possibility that it belongs to a certain person is extremely high. Each person's DNA is different, but my DNA will always look the same. I know when I don't completely understand something, so I went to a reliable source for my definition. I prefer not to go with what I think I know, or what someone else thinks I should think. I try to find actual information. DNA for each species, and for individuals in each species, has evolved over millions of years, not six months.


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts wrote "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."
> 
> Very good cut and paste. Now explain how when scientists look at DNA they can tell exactly who it belongs to when the DNA has been changing over the years.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Evolution happened over millions of years. It isn't a magic trick. If you would actually look at the scientific information you would be able to see the changes which show the progression which made a bird out of a fish.


thumper5316 said:


> It still can't make a bird out of a fish.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

What is man going to turn into next? Besides dirt. Why haven't we evolved into something else? The thing that separates man or woman from animals is that we have a spirit. Animals do not have a spirit. So we could not have came from an animal or fish .


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Sorry. Carbon dating is condidered higly reliable and become more so in recent years. My husband, the physicist, works at a national research lab. He does carbon dating all the time. Certainly as scientists learn more they expand their understanding and might improve a method such as carbon dating. However, dates are tending to get pushed back, not forward to within the last few thousand years. Just because people weren't around doesn't mean things didn't happen before they existed. Evolution continues all the time, but it takes millions of years, not twenty or thirty. You need to broaden your scope of understanding. There is all kinds of evidence for carbon dating and for evolution. The fact that you don't grasp the scope of earth's history doesn't mean it isn't true. Evolution is not a magic trick, like turning water into wine.


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists don't actually say they can tell exactly who DNA belongs to. They say that the percentage of matches in two samples are so close to each other that the possibility that it belongs to a certain person is extremely high. Each person's DNA is different, but my DNA will always look the same. I know when I don't completely understand something, so I went to a reliable source for my definition. I prefer not to go with what I think I know, or what someone else thinks I should think. I try to find actual information. DNA for each species, and for individuals in each species, has evolved over millions of years, not six months.
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

You are correct that what scientists have discovered has been discovered because they developed the tools. Scientists have found sufficient evidence for Evolution to be a theory which does not need further proof, according the National Academy of Science.


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts wrote "That is not proof of Creation. It is a statement of what we don't know right now. People used to believe the earth was flat. We don't believe that any longer because we learned something different. People used to believe that bleeding someone would cure them of illnesses. Today we use antibiotics for the same purpose because we learned that bleeding doesn'thave anything to do with curing disease. Science is constantly increasing our knowledge and understanding of the world. What we don't know now we may know tomorrow. That is science, not Creationism."
> 
> Whatever the scientists have discovered has been there all the time. They have just invented new tools to find it. They have researched and with trial and error have found solutions to problems. It has nothing to do with evolution.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I repeat - it is NOT a magic trick. It is a proven theory. Creationism is fantasy.


joeysomma said:


> Pardoquilts wrote, "Evolution is not a magic trick, like turning water into wine."
> 
> A very good description of Evolution, a magic trick.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

It may not be perfect, which any decent scientist will acknowledge, but it also doesn't come anywhere near saying that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Certainly, rocks can be dated withpretty good accuracy, and if you find bones in a layer of rocks, you can be pretty certain that they were put there about the time the rocks were laid down.


joeysomma said:


> http://www.essortment.com/carbon-dating-accuracy-flaws-carbon-dating-37183.html
> 
> "Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities."


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Furthermore, this "article" gives no source.


joeysomma said:


> http://www.essortment.com/carbon-dating-accuracy-flaws-carbon-dating-37183.html
> 
> "Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities."


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> i'm not, but what difference does that make?
> 
> 
> Janeway said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

When a topic comes up, I do research because I'd rather form opinions from actualy information than from suppositions and stereotypes.


Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > i'm not, but what difference does that make?
> ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Hello, when someone did a cut/paste, it has made the pages go bananas as I now have two different people saying quotes side by side on the same page. What has happened?


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Pardoquilts wrote, "Evolution is not a magic trick, like turning water into wine."
> 
> A very good description of Evolution, a magic trick.


The thing about evolution is that it happened over millions of years. Human history has been here for a minute fraction of the earth's existence. How can we possibly see evolution in action?

I do wish you creationists would stop talking about proof. As I said before, you rely on FAITH. That is, a belief in something that cannot be proved. People who believe do not want proof. If you had absolute proof of creationism, you would not need faith. Of course you can believe any fairy story you want, but please stop talking about it as if we who don't believe are wrong.

Anyway, how are you going to get to heaven if you are so intolerant and mean? Please remember what your Lord Jesus had to say.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I mispoke. Rocks are dated by tiny pockets of matter, including air, which are entrapped in the rock, as well by several other methods, and the dating of rocks is considered fairly accurate (if you remember that there is a range of time, and that it can't be as accurate as an actual date on the calendar). I am not a scientist, but just don't understand believing that the earth is only a few thousand years old.


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > It may not be perfect, which any decent scientist will acknowledge, but it also doesn't come anywhere near saying that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Certainly, rocks can be dated withpretty good accuracy, and if you find bones in a layer of rocks, you can be pretty certain that they were put there about the time the rocks were laid down.
> ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> The whole point of faith is that it does not require or want proof. It's faith. Science relies on the evidence it can see. That's the difference. You have faith in a supernatural being and I don't. We will never convince each other, but really there is no need for this nasty, unchristian tone. I do not need a "cookie". I assume that is what we in the undeveloped world call a biscuit.
> 
> And yes, I did have an excellent state education, untainted by the rantings of religious zealotry. Having been brought up as a Methodist (one sect that I was grateful displayed a lot more christian charity than I have observed here), I do know whereof I speak.
> 
> Finally, I thought I was going to rise above this childishness, but do you need a valium?


No, I don' need "your" Valium as you must take them when you need a way out of things you have said.

You aren't talking to a bunch of "high school" people on this site as most are very well educated. I hold a ME in Education, a BS in Accounting and an Associates in Economics.

My family is American Apache Indians who if we could practice our religion, have many Gods. Christianity was forced upon us by beatings and sometimes death of family members so don't even try to force your views upon me!

I will pray for your "lost" soul as you need help from a higher power even though you don't believe in any God.

Take your own drugs!


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Janeway said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > The whole point of faith is that it does not require or want proof. It's faith. Science relies on the evidence it can see. That's the difference. You have faith in a supernatural being and I don't. We will never convince each other, but really there is no need for this nasty, unchristian tone. I do not need a "cookie". I assume that is what we in the undeveloped world call a biscuit.
> ...


Please don't blame me for what christians did to your ancestors. This is what happens when one group thinks it has the right to force its beliefs on another. And my soul is fine, thank you. I don't think I mislaid it, so please don't waste your prayers.

I am truly not trying to force my views on you, but you cannot deny me the right to hold and express them. As I have said many times, of course anyone can believe whatever they want. It's the hatred and oppression that comes with it, as your people have experienced in such a terrible way.

By the way, what is your problem with Hispanic people? Is it envy that they are less oppressed than you? It does come over as racism. I hope that's not the case.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Why is the fact that every country who do not speak the same tongue, know a higher power of a God. This God made them is why they are upon Earth and are superior to all animals!

Try to explain that fact! Out of here as some of you are impossible with your thinking! Will pray for you even though you don't believe.

Ingried/ConnanK/LillyK have returned! They were very narrow minded too!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > aw9358 said:
> ...


Don't have any problems with Hispanics just the fact that most are illegally and get welfare. They don't even try to speak English but want us to speak Spanish.

Our native Apache language is nearly dead so that is really what ruffles my feathers. At one time, we were not allowed to even think about our language so my parents never taught their children. Once in a great while they would talk so low that we could not hear what they were saying in the Apache language.

I have done research on the native language, but have been told in order to learn it, you must be with a person who speaks the language in order to get the sounds right. It is such a shame that I don't know nor was taught my native language.

So yes, the Spanish speaking people in the USA do irritate me because of the language--nothing more.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Sorry, not a fact. Your religious belief...not a fact.


Janeway said:


> Why is the fact that every country who do not speak the same tongue, know a higher power of a God. This God made them is why they are upon Earth and are superior to all animals!
> 
> Try to explain that fact! Out of here as some of you are impossible with your thinking! Will pray for you even though you don't believe.
> 
> Ingried/ConnanK/LillyK have returned! They were very narrow minded too!


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I guess i'm all about facts today. It is a fact that there are, according to the 2010 census, 50.7 people of Hispanic origin in the U.S. Estimates are that 12 million of those are onducumented. The percentage of Hispanics on welfare is 17% of all people on welfare. So most of them are Not here illegally, and most of them are NOT on welfare.


Janeway said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > Janeway said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I guess i'm all about facts today. It is a fact that there are, according to the 2010 census, 50.7 people of Hispanic origin in the U.S. Estimates are that 12 million of those are onducumented. The percentage of Hispanics on welfare is 17% of all people on welfare. So most of them are Not here illegally, and most of them are NOT on welfare.


Janeway said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > Janeway said:
> ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Sorry, not a fact. Your religious belief...not a fact.
> 
> 
> Janeway said:
> ...


Do you believe in anything except a scientific theory. Don't try to force your scientific views upon me as someone of a higher power did make us living and not a rock. Hello!

I think you just enjoy the argument!

Just saw your note--well in the state where I live 90% of the people on Welfare are Illegal Hispanics who are breaking like rabbits. There is a bill being run through now that if you are here illegally, then you cannot get Welfare!


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Janeway said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > Janeway said:
> ...


It's more than a shame - it was an ghastly crime perpetrated by people who thought they and their god were better than the people they found.

So please will you allow me to express my views? I am not trying to oppress anyone. I would just like to hear your opinion on what I believe regarding religion.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

No, I don't believe there is any supernatural being. I do believe in being fair, kind to your neighbor, helping when you can, raising children with a good moral code, and basing my opinions on actual facts, not stereotypes, fantasy or wishful thinking. And, I go to church at a Unitarian Universalist church, where I can find my own spiritual path and not have it dictated by someone else. I know I'm not going to change your perception of reality, but I refuse to let misinformation stay unchallenged.


Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, not a fact. Your religious belief...not a fact.
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Don't know what state you live in, so can't check the facts. Is that actual information, or just your opinion?


Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, not a fact. Your religious belief...not a fact.
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Israle Antiquities Authority
Heritage Daily
Bible History Daily.

these are about the finds you may see to prove there is a God and Jesus.
Robert Ballard who help find Titanic has cause to believe he has found site under water that would date back to 5,000 BC time when whole earth flooded Time of Noah many artifacts and ships
Turkey Biblical City of Ephesus. 
Dead sea scrolls
Salmon's temple
graves under temple mount.
Much more just for the facts, Have been listening to this and much more on Christian radio. Oh no you say not another nut yes thats me.

As to being from Apes, and the find of an ape walking upright, funny has anyone been to a zoo lately, I have seen them walking upright.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Israle Antiquities Authority
> Heritage Daily
> Bible History Daily.
> 
> ...


How many more times? You have FAITH. Faith does not want proof. If there was incontrovertible proof, you would not need to have faith. And I did not say you are a nut, but why do you want proof? I don't care and neither should you.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Janeway said:


> Why is the fact that every country who do not speak the same tongue, know a higher power of a God. This God made them is why they are upon Earth and are superior to all animals!
> 
> Try to explain that fact! Out of here as some of you are impossible with your thinking! Will pray for you even though you don't believe.
> 
> Ingried/ConnanK/LillyK have returned! They were very narrow minded too!


I do not believe in prayer..........keep them to yourselves


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Janeway said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > Janeway said:
> ...


You are generalizing and in not a very educated way,.Using the word Most is just wrong, get your facts straight.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, not a fact. Your religious belief...not a fact.
> ...


What outright bigotry. Hateful people musst lie in your state,


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Pardoquilts wrote, "Evolution is not a magic trick, like turning water into wine."
> 
> A very good description of Evolution, a magic trick.


Can I have proof of G_d? How do you know she exists? Where is your proof of Creationism?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > Israle Antiquities Authority
> ...


Didn't mean what I posted to you, sorry if that is what you thought meant for someone who thinks there is no proof.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Thank you for your apology, but I also think there is no proof. Why do you want it? If you had proof you wouldn't need faith. The funeral service says "... in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life". Not proof, just hope. That is the basis of the christian religion. And actually, I think that those things you mentioned above as being proof were made and interpreted by men. My belief in science demands evidence but your faith does not.

I do agree that it is more important to be nice. Please let's remember that.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

The empty tomb is the only proof I need.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> The empty tomb is the only proof I need.


How do you he was even there? How do you know how he got out? Where is your proof?


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Rocky, Rocky Rocky, your writings make me think you are filled with anger. I can almost visualize your Clinton like finger pointing and shaking it with righteous indignation. 

Sometimes faith is all the proof one needs, sometimes not. But mocking someone's faith in God, and goading them with the word 'she' is disrespectful. No reason to be nasty/


----------



## Omnivore (Apr 16, 2012)

Er - are they breeding like rabbits because of the stupid Catholic ban on contraception - if they ARE breeding like rabbits, that is - just my two-bobs' worth because it's fun arguing I think ...


Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, not a fact. Your religious belief...not a fact.
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I didn't say there aren't antiquities, and the bible offers some stories about them that are interesting. However, I don't believe they prove anything about the existence of a god, nor about the the divinity of Jesus.


theyarnlady said:


> Israle Antiquities Authority
> Heritage Daily
> Bible History Daily.
> 
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Rocky, Rocky Rocky, your writings make me think you are filled with anger. I can almost visualize your Clinton like finger pointing and shaking it with righteous indignation.
> 
> Sometimes faith is all the proof one needs, sometimes not. But mocking someone's faith in God, and goading them with the word 'she' is disrespectful. No reason to be nasty/


I am not mocking anyone, I am a skeptic andd need proof. I am not angry at your belief in religion, I just feel that religion is an opiate that keeps people from thinking.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Rocky, Rocky Rocky, your writings make me think you are filled with anger. I can almost visualize your Clinton like finger pointing and shaking it with righteous indignation.
> 
> Sometimes faith is all the proof one needs, sometimes not. But mocking someone's faith in God, and goading them with the word 'she' is disrespectful. No reason to be nasty/


I could believe in Mother Earth,,,,,,,she is a she


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky, Rocky Rocky, your writings make me think you are filled with anger. I can almost visualize your Clinton like finger pointing and shaking it with righteous indignation.
> ...


Why can't G-d be a woman? do you know for sure. I think women are as equal as men.


----------



## kiffer (Jun 3, 2011)

victoria1953 said:


> We are all going to be paying a lot more.I am 59 and have been disabled since the age of 34 all this time I have had Medicare.I am going to loose coverage on a lot of things and hope to God that I don't get any worse than I am right now.


How right you are. We haven't seen the worse of Obama care yet.


----------



## kiffer (Jun 3, 2011)

flhusker said:


> Obama would like nothing mode than to have all us Seniors to simply drop dead so he can take all our money that we paid into social security all these years and spend it. Every time there is a budget crunch it's social security that gets threatened. All the politician seem to forget that is money we earned and loaned to them with the promise that we would get it back.


Well said.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

It is the Republicans who proposed cutting Social Security and Medicare, including the Vice Presidential candidate.


kiffer said:


> flhusker said:
> 
> 
> > Obama would like nothing mode than to have all us Seniors to simply drop dead so he can take all our money that we paid into social security all these years and spend it. Every time there is a budget crunch it's social security that gets threatened. All the politician seem to forget that is money we earned and loaned to them with the promise that we would get it back.
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

And, the apes don't walk in the same fashion as we do - and the biggest difference is that they don't have opposable thumbs.


theyarnlady said:


> Israle Antiquities Authority
> Heritage Daily
> Bible History Daily.
> 
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> It is the Republicans who proposed cutting Social Security and Medicare, including the Vice Presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> kiffer said:
> ...


I'm sorry. I will tolerate much from you, pardo, but I will not tolerate out and out lying. Obama is the one that has proposed the current cut in spending for Social Security. Pelosi has agreed saying that it will strengthen the program.

In my opinion, there has never been a program that the democrats haven't loved and then proceeded to raid, leaving behind worthless IOUs, all on the name of "social justice".


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

When are Obama supporters goingto realize how bad it is.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> And, the apes don't walk in the same fashion as we do - and the biggest difference is that they don't have opposable thumbs.
> 
> 
> theyarnlady said:
> ...


Oh I see you haven't been to a zoo and watch them, they can and do walk upright, not as long as a man but they can and do.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > It is the Republicans who proposed cutting Social Security and Medicare, including the Vice Presidential candidate.
> ...


Well said, and watch tonight he wants another tax raise for middle income. But then what do you expect.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> When are Obama supporters goingto realize how bad it is.


Not tell they have their pockets pick and empty.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Obama already cut 500 billion to fund Obamacare. 

Wake up people and smell the coffee, because after all the tax hikes this year you won't be able to afford to drink it.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Yes, everyone's pockets will be empty - all Obama's fault.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

This thread just keeps on giving. We've had religious intolerance, racism, and Obama-hating to top and tail it.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

So, as conservatives we should just agree with everything you and your compatriots put forth as gospel and if we don't we are "intolerant, racist, and obama-hating" people?



aw9358 said:


> This thread just keeps on giving. We've had religious intolerance, racism, and Obama-hating to top and tail it.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Oh please. Just look back at some of the posts here. I have repeatedly tried to explain where I stand. I have not attacked anyone's beliefs, just the way they are expressed. I just ask for the same courtesy from you. There has been a distinct lack of christian charity and forgiveness displayed by many posters on this thread. What would Jesus say?


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> What would Jesus say?


Well, it depends. I recall him taking a whip to some.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Why can't god be androgynous? Why do you insist on making it a contest?


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > What would Jesus say?
> ...


Love your editing.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Any male that I have talked to abhores abortion. We are not as guiltless as we would desire to paint our gender to be.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > aw9358 said:
> ...


Please expound.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Gladly. You ignored the rest of what I said.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> Gladly. You ignored the rest of what I said.


Sorry, ignored what?


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Country Bumpkins said:
> 
> 
> > The empty tomb is the only proof I need.
> ...


Romans kept great history records. That would be a good place to start. Base on facts.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

The post I wrote that contained the four words you chose to quote. It's not that far back. I'd love to continue this since we appear to be talking in a more civilised manner, but it's 2.18 am here and time for bed. Even godless heathens have to sleep sometimes, so I'll wish you a good and peaceful night.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Country Bumpkins said:
> ...


I'm sorry, I know I said goodnight, but please point me in the direction of Roman writers who recorded this. I can't think of any offhand. As far as I know, there was no census in Bethlehem, but if there is a historical record I'd like to read it.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Flavius Josephus
> 
> born in Jerusalem, Israel January 03, 0037
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> When are Obama supporters goingto realize how bad it is.


Not until it hits them in their wallet. Then all hell will break loose.


----------



## Omnivore (Apr 16, 2012)

Nah - I think the first person would have been a woman and the man was a copy, because the woman had nipples, and the man has nipples which he doesn't need.

Any takers? : )


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Did anyone see the DOG SHOW last night. It was the most honest thing on TV up until 10 pm.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Omnivore said:


> Nah - I think the first person would have been a woman and the man was a copy, because the woman had nipples, and the man has nipples which he doesn't need.
> 
> Any takers? : )


Man was first and then the woman. He gave man had a penis and didn't give one to woman. He figured that we didn't need one because with what we had we could get all the penises we wanted?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Good one.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

i think it is foolish to believe that all our fiscal problems can be solved with cuts in the budget, without a tax hike of some sort. You don't want any cuts in Medicare, you don't want any chages in Social Security, even though Americans are living way beyond what was expected when Social Security was enacted, and the largest group of Social Security receivers are just beginning to receive that benefit. How do you think we are going to pay for that? I, personally, think that pushing back the age for full SS benefits so that young people will not be expecting the same start age as we have now, is an excellent way to solve the Social Security problem, as well as moving the cap on income up, so that upper middle class incomes continue to pay what is a relatively small part of their income into SS. There is no question that we need to cut wasteful spending in government, but that issue crosses party lines. Every Congressperson believes their little extra issue, added on to virtually every bill that goes through Congress, is really important, and all of that adds to the total . And, of course, we can't have any cuts in Defense, even though that is probably the biggest source of wasteful spending we have. How do you pay for all that?


theyarnlady said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

What does abortion have to do with this conversation? Thought it may be the only topic we haven't covered!


thumper5316 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

kiffer said:


> victoria1953 said:
> 
> 
> > We are all going to be paying a lot more.I am 59 and have been disabled since the age of 34 all this time I have had Medicare.I am going to loose coverage on a lot of things and hope to God that I don't get any worse than I am right now.
> ...


What are you going to lose? I have not heard that anyone who is disabled will be kicked out of medicare. Please enlighten me. My husband is disabled.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> And, the apes don't walk in the same fashion as we do - and the biggest difference is that they don't have opposable thumbs.
> 
> 
> theyarnlady said:
> ...


Apes do have opposable thumbs.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > It is the Republicans who proposed cutting Social Security and Medicare, including the Vice Presidential candidate.
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> When are Obama supporters goingto realize how bad it is.


When Republicans learn how to think critically.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Obama already cut 500 billion to fund Obamacare.
> 
> Wake up people and smell the coffee, because after all the tax hikes this year you won't be able to afford to drink it.


Would please look up the facts on this, he did not cut that money...........he cut funding to hospitals and providers, not to medicare recipients.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > And, the apes don't walk in the same fashion as we do - and the biggest difference is that they don't have opposable thumbs.
> ...


 Oops, ou are right, Rocky! My bad.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> So, as conservatives we should just agree with everything you and your compatriots put forth as gospel and if we don't we are "intolerant, racist, and obama-hating" people?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You shouldn't agree, but you should look up the facts and not repeat pubs talking points and incorrect data from fox news et al.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> Oh please. Just look back at some of the posts here. I have repeatedly tried to explain where I stand. I have not attacked anyone's beliefs, just the way they are expressed. I just ask for the same courtesy from you. There has been a distinct lack of christian charity and forgiveness displayed by many posters on this thread. What would Jesus say?


He would just cry.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


I could live with an androgynous god.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Great! That's what you've got. God is neither male nor female. God just is.



rocky1991 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


Who cares what men think. They do not carry children in their bodies. If they are raped they do not have to live with the results of an unwanted pregnancy. It is my body not his, I resent any man telling me what I should or shouln't do with my body. In fact I dislike a woman telling me that also. If you don't like abortions, don't have one, but leave me and my choice alone. As of now abortions are legal in this country, get over it.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Country Bumpkins said:
> ...


Facts, stories maybe, but not facts.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

RUKnitting said:


> Did anyone see the DOG SHOW last night. It was the most honest thing on TV up until 10 pm.


Even dog shows are not tht honest.........breeders cheat also.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

You are missing my point and your misandry is showing.

My point is that we females are supposed to be the more caring and gentle of the two genders. We have painted men as being violent, uncaring, blah, blah...fill in the blank. With advances in birth control, legalization of abortion, and the ability to advance in careers we have become what we for so long professed to dislike. We are no longer the loving 'Mother Earth' we would like to portray ourselves to be and we have no right to hold ourselves as superior to men.



rocky1991 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> You are missing my point and your misandry is showing.
> 
> My point is that we females are supposed to be the more caring and gentle of the two genders. We have painted men as being violent, uncaring, blah, blah...fill in the blank. With advances in birth control, legalization of abortion, and the ability to advance in careers we have become what we for so long professed to dislike. We are no longer the loving 'Mother Earth' we would like to portray ourselves to be and we have no right to hold ourselves as superior to men.
> 
> ...


I ahappen to believe that women are equal to not superior or inferior to men. I certainly am not submissive to men nor am I aggressive.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Time for doctors to get on board with treating people and not making lots of money.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

And time for hospitals to be held accountable for their treatment outcomes, which is part of the ACA plan.


rocky1991 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

I would go with the hospitals being held accountable for treatment outcomes when patients are held responsible for being non-compliant.



pardoquilts said:


> And time for hospitals to be held accountable for their treatment outcomes, which is part of the ACA plan.
> 
> 
> rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

You are spot-on, joysomma.

I work in a long term care facility. Medicare dictates how much we can charge ANYBODY and how much we get reimbursed. They reimburse a very, very low amount. Now explain to me why nobody, except the union members, have gotten a raise over the last five years.



joeysomma said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


I live in Florida, lots of peo.e here on Medicare, the doctors are doing fairly well


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> You are spot-on, joysomma.
> 
> I work in a long term care facility. Medicare dictates how much we can charge ANYBODY and how much we get reimbursed. They reimburse a very, very low amount. Now explain to me why nobody, except the union members, have gotten a raise over the last five years.
> 
> ...


What union members have gotten a raise?


----------



## Omnivore (Apr 16, 2012)

Can't argue with the second bit haha


thumper5316 said:


> Omnivore said:
> 
> 
> > Nah - I think the first person would have been a woman and the man was a copy, because the woman had nipples, and the man has nipples which he doesn't need.
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

SEIU



rocky1991 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > You are spot-on, joysomma.
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Maybe if MORE people were in unions wages would be better. A large part of gains made over the years by employees in both wages and working conditions were made through the efforts of unions.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > soloweygirl said:
> ...


I find your logic confusing. I'm not pro choice because I don't want to pay for someone else's abortion? Except in cases of rape or incest, the couple should be paying for the abortion. It is not anyone else's responsibility.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Maybe if MORE people were in unions wages would be better. A large part of gains made over the years by employees in both wages and working conditions were made through the efforts of unions.


Absolutely :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Designer1234 said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > I always said Obama needed to go.
> ...


Back in to sling the mud? Was your comment really necessary? If you don't like what she is saying, just ignore it.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe if MORE people were in unions wages would be better. A large part of gains made over the years by employees in both wages and working conditions were made through the efforts of unions.
> ...


Absolutely not :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

They have outlived their usefulness. Tell me what good the union did for the Hostess employees. How about Crystal Sugar? Tell me what good did they do for the auto industry...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Maybe if MORE people were in unions wages would be better. A large part of gains made over the years by employees in both wages and working conditions were made through the efforts of unions.


I think we need more unions and more membership in unions. They are our only hope from corporations. Without unions we'd have 7 day work weeks and children loboring.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


I don't know if those people were unionized. Benefits we enjoy at our jobs today came as a result of organized labor fighting for them. I don't think it's a good thing to be at the mercy of employers. The idea that the benevolent employer will do what's right for his/her employees is long gone.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

That is such a tired line. There are laws prohibiting child labor last I checked and it's *highly* (likelihood of nill) doubtful that we would go back to a 7 day work week. Only hope from the evil corporations...yeah, the ones that employ a vast number of the citizens of the U.S.



rocky1991 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe if MORE people were in unions wages would be better. A large part of gains made over the years by employees in both wages and working conditions were made through the efforts of unions.
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Yes, they were all union shops. Unions have done more to drive companies out of business than any organization.



alcameron said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > aw9358 said:
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I started writing a list of things the unions have been instrumental in getting, but found one already done for us.


1. Weekends without work (5 day work week instead of 6)
2. All breaks at work, including your lunch breaks
3. Paid vacation
4. Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
5. Sick leave
6. Social Security
7. Minimum wage
8. Civil Rights Act/Title VII - prohibits employer discrimination
9. 8-hour work day
10. Overtime pay
11. Child labor laws
12. Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
13. 40-hour work week
14. Workers compensation (workers comp)
15. Unemployment insurance
16. Pensions
17. Workplace safety standards and regulations
18. Employer health care insurance
19. Collective bargaining rights for employees
20. Wrongful termination laws
21. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)
22. Whistleblower protection laws
23. Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) - prohibits employers from using a lie detector test on an employee
24. Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
25. Compensation increases and evaluations (i.e. raises)
26. Sexual harassment laws
27. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
28. Holiday pay
29. Employer dental, life, and vision insurance
30. Privacy rights (via the Supreme Court)
31. Pregnancy and parental leave
32. Military leave
33. The right to strike
34. Public education for children
35. Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 - requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work
36. Laws ending sweatshops in the United States


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

But there will be cuts to Medicare which will affect everyone...some doctors are already dropping medicare patients.



rocky1991 said:


> kiffer said:
> 
> 
> > victoria1953 said:
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

I don't believe that unions are responsible for all of these for a minute. If they said so and you actually believe them it's no wonder you voted for obama. You are not able to recognize B.S. when you see it.



alcameron said:


> I started writing a list of things the unions have been instrumental in getting, but found one already done for us.
> 
> 1. Weekends without work (5 day work week instead of 6)
> 2. All breaks at work, including your lunch breaks
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

I know that there are LTC TCU units that are decomissioning Medicare beds and going to Private Pay only. It's the only way they can afford to stay open.



momeee said:


> But there will be cuts to Medicare which will affect everyone...some doctors are already dropping medicare patients.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> i think it is foolish to believe that all our fiscal problems can be solved with cuts in the budget, without a tax hike of some sort. You don't want any cuts in Medicare, you don't want any chages in Social Security, even though Americans are living way beyond what was expected when Social Security was enacted, and the largest group of Social Security receivers are just beginning to receive that benefit. How do you think we are going to pay for that? I, personally, think that pushing back the age for full SS benefits so that young people will not be expecting the same start age as we have now, is an excellent way to solve the Social Security problem, as well as moving the cap on income up, so that upper middle class incomes continue to pay what is a relatively small part of their income into SS. There is no question that we need to cut wasteful spending in government, but that issue crosses party lines. Every Congressperson believes their little extra issue, added on to virtually every bill that goes through Congress, is really important, and all of that adds to the total . And, of course, we can't have any cuts in Defense, even though that is probably the biggest source of wasteful spending we have. How do you pay for all that?
> 
> 
> theyarnlady said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> That is such a tired line. There are laws prohibiting child labor last I checked and it's *highly* (likelihood of nill) doubtful that we would go back to a 7 day work week. Only hope from the evil corporations...yeah, the ones that employ a vast number of the citizens of the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


However, that is why we have unions, because of the abuses.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> Yes, they were all union shops. Unions have done more to drive companies out of business than any organization.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the greed of coportions are also a cause.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > i think it is foolish to believe that all our fiscal problems can be solved with cuts in the budget, without a tax hike of some sort. You don't want any cuts in Medicare, you don't want any chages in Social Security, even though Americans are living way beyond what was expected when Social Security was enacted, and the largest group of Social Security receivers are just beginning to receive that benefit. How do you think we are going to pay for that? I, personally, think that pushing back the age for full SS benefits so that young people will not be expecting the same start age as we have now, is an excellent way to solve the Social Security problem, as well as moving the cap on income up, so that upper middle class incomes continue to pay what is a relatively small part of their income into SS. There is no question that we need to cut wasteful spending in government, but that issue crosses party lines. Every Congressperson believes their little extra issue, added on to virtually every bill that goes through Congress, is really important, and all of that adds to the total . And, of course, we can't have any cuts in Defense, even though that is probably the biggest source of wasteful spending we have. How do you pay for all that?
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> I don't believe that unions are responsible for all of these for a minute. If they said so and you actually believe them it's no wonder you voted for obama. You are not able to recognize B.S. when you see it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why don't you check out all 36 and report back to us. Let us know which ones are not true.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


Why? Many doctors went into the medical field because of the money that could be made. Who are you to tell anyone why they should choose a profession and how much money they should earn.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> I don't believe that unions are responsible for all of these for a minute. If they said so and you actually believe them it's no wonder you voted for obama. You are not able to recognize B.S. when you see it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So do you believe these items were just given from our benevolent employers? You REALLY believe a bunch of BS. No wonder you voted for Romney, the benevolent employer. Which employers/large corporations/businesses do you think instituted these things?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe if MORE people were in unions wages would be better. A large part of gains made over the years by employees in both wages and working conditions were made through the efforts of unions.
> ...


Wages might be better but we would not have any manufacturing businesses left here. They would drive the cost of doing business up enormously resulting in more factories closing. The price of a product would be such that the average person could not afford to buy it. Oh wait, that is already happening.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

In their day, unions were much needed. Now they are not useful in helping to keep business in the country. In some instances where jobs/factories went over seas, it was a direct result of unions refusing to make concessions. It is believed that they would rather see shops close/ go bankrupt than make concessions. One only has to look at the salaries and benefits for the big union's administration. It is shameful...and people here post about the high salaries of doctors, and executives; take a look at the unions who are getting wavers from o.
I've been in unions. The one I am most familiar with is a teacher's union. In the most recent 2 decades they protected lazy, unprepared, unkind, ineffective, abusive teachers. We all (members, teachers, administrators, and union officials) should always have the children's' best interest foremost, but time after time our union and contract was cited at a leading university as an example of how damaging a bad contract(teacher friendly/ children secondary) could be to an educational system. Those who did not agree with the union (about 50% in my district) still remained members because the union officials were bullys. If you spoke out against them, and if you had a child in that school system, he would be penalized in any number of ways by loyal members. If a teacher were accused of serious wrong-doing ( something most other teachers were aware of), the union would file a grievance, advise the teacher to go out on medical leave - with pay - which they ALWAYS approved, and dragged out the grievance/firing process until it became too expensive for the district to continue. Who won - the union member. Who lost? The kids. 
On the other hand many of us felt that we all were benefiting from their negotiating efforts(WHICH WERE LENGTHY AND CONSIDERABLE) regarding salaries, benefits, etc. ...so we paid our dues.



thumper5316 said:


> Yes, they were all union shops. Unions have done more to drive companies out of business than any organization.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Well, I looked up six random points on the list and only one of them could be attributed to the unions.



rocky1991 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe that unions are responsible for all of these for a minute. If they said so and you actually believe them it's no wonder you voted for obama. You are not able to recognize B.S. when you see it.
> ...


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

rocky1991 said:
 

> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

momeee said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


As long as CEOs and top-level executives want the millions of dollars they think they deserve, they will go wherever the labor is cheap. Just maybe if the jobs were here AND the employees were paid a living wage, they (the employees) might have more money to spend and maybe that would stimulate the economy. The fact is that corporations are always looking for cheap labor and they could care less about giving anyone a decent wage. Just as an aside, taking their businesses overseas also demonstrates how much they love their country.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Doctors' education is VERY expensive and they are in school many years. We have friends who didn't begin to receive a salary until they were well into their mid-thirtys. When the education expense is coupled with accumulated debt from living expenses, and the cost of setting up a practice, orrice, help, equipment, insurance...they should be the determiners of what they charge. It takes decades for them to retire that debt. Do you want to govt. to determine how much we all can earn? In a free market, we earn what the market will pay, or in some cases , what we're worth.
Friends who are doctors have been discouraging their bright, talented kids to choose other professions. We have friends who have left their practices and went into another field. Soon we won't be able to see a doctor, but will only have Nurse Practitioners, and Physician's Assistants, who are educated for the job they do BUT they are not doctors...and if you have something seriously wrong with you...you want a doctor.



rocky1991 said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

While I abhor "Greed" I 'm not sure that is how I'd characterize the corporation's goal. There is a mandate,whether a privately or publicly held company, to be successful,i.e., make a profit. Again I do not want the govt. determining how much profit a company makes. The tax structure already is contributing to that . 
In VT we have lost so very many businesses/jobs because of the unfavorable tax structure. The climate is unfriendly to business and it is almost impossible to attract new businesses. Entitlement programs are increasing and out of control. Drug trade is the new venture and it is a MAJOR problem here.



rocky1991 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, they were all union shops. Unions have done more to drive companies out of business than any organization.
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

There are many people who do work 7 days a week (business owners, doctors, and part-time workers, hobbling 2 or 3 jobs together to make a living)- some out of choice -MOST out of necessity.



thumper5316 said:


> That is such a tired line. There are laws prohibiting child labor last I checked and it's *highly* (likelihood of nill) doubtful that we would go back to a 7 day work week. Only hope from the evil corporations...yeah, the ones that employ a vast number of the citizens of the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

In a perfect world, we might not need labor unions. But until then, I think they serve a purpose, despite their declining membership. The alternative, in my opinion, is to enact laws that would make the unions unnecessary. And not many on this forum would want more government regulations, would they?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

They are dropping it because of all the stuff coming down due to Obama and what he is doing.

Without the union, i would have had the biggest liar, manipulator, good for nothing, evil as in the devil, make my life hell. Thank God the unionwas there!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

No more government PLEASE!


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

LukeLucy, we agree on something???


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Is that a question or a ststement?.. Nice to agree.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I guess it was a statement. Yes, it is nice to agree on something. I think people who have worked in jobs in which they had direct benefit from a union are thankful the union was there.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

I'd like to see some controls, regulations, laws, if you like, which would curtail their power as well as how the dues are spent. But on the other hand, I dislike govt. interference when it is not needed to regulate every aspect of daily life. 


alcameron said:


> In a perfect world, we might not need labor unions. But until then, I think they serve a purpose, despite their declining membership. The alternative, in my opinion, is to enact laws that would make the unions unnecessary. And not many on this forum would want more government regulations, would they?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> Well, I looked up six random points on the list and only one of them could be attributed to the unions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which ones?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > soloweygirl said:
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

You can do your own research just like I did mine.



rocky1991 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I looked up six random points on the list and only one of them could be attributed to the unions.
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I think we actually agree on much of this. The issue with moving the cap on Social Security is that there is a limit on how much income can be subject to the Social Securit tax (which is 6.2%). In 2013, if you make $113,000, you will stop paying SS tax when you have paid in about $7,050. Even raising that cap a little would help the problem enormously, and, frankly I think that folks who make more than that - the upper-middle income folks and above - could probably afford to pay a little more. Everyone pays the same rate - it is just that people who make more than $113,00 don't have to pay any more. In effect, that lowers the percentage of their income that they pay into Social Security. It is true that Congress has borrowed from Social Security. They have also, over the years, added people who were not originally part of the package - people on disability, children whose parents have died. Many of those SS recipients do not pay into the fund. However, I don't think most people would want to cut them from receiving those benefits. We need to find a better solution, and I believe a higher cap, plus moving the age up for the future, would go a long way to solving this. As for everyone getting a tax increase, if you add taxes to low income people, you are asking them to pay a greater percentage of their income that people who pay more. Furthermore, most people in upper income brackets have better resources for creating deductions. I think a tax code overhaul is needed, but I think we have some other things to solve before that happens.


soloweygirl said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > i think it is foolish to believe that all our fiscal problems can be solved with cuts in the budget, without a tax hike of some sort. You don't want any cuts in Medicare, you don't want any chages in Social Security, even though Americans are living way beyond what was expected when Social Security was enacted, and the largest group of Social Security receivers are just beginning to receive that benefit. How do you think we are going to pay for that? I, personally, think that pushing back the age for full SS benefits so that young people will not be expecting the same start age as we have now, is an excellent way to solve the Social Security problem, as well as moving the cap on income up, so that upper middle class incomes continue to pay what is a relatively small part of their income into SS. There is no question that we need to cut wasteful spending in government, but that issue crosses party lines. Every Congressperson believes their little extra issue, added on to virtually every bill that goes through Congress, is really important, and all of that adds to the total . And, of course, we can't have any cuts in Defense, even though that is probably the biggest source of wasteful spending we have. How do you pay for all that?
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

I, too, agree on much of this. Also, I would like to like to see a cap on the amount retirees can make and still receive benefits.



pardoquilts said:


> I think we actually agree on much of this. The issue with moving the cap on Social Security is that there is a limit on how much income can be subject to the Social Securit tax (which is 6.2%). In 2013, if you make $113,000, you will stop paying SS tax when you have paid in about $7,050. Even raising that cap a little would help the problem enormously, and, frankly I think that folks who make more than that - the upper-middle income folks and above - could probably afford to pay a little more. Everyone pays the same rate - it is just that people who make more than $113,00 don't have to pay any more. In effect, that lowers the percentage of their income that they pay into Social Security. It is true that Congress has borrowed from Social Security. They have also, over the years, added people who were not originally part of the package - people on disability, children whose parents have died. Many of those SS recipients do not pay into the fund. However, I don't think most people would want to cut them from receiving those benefits. We need to find a better solution, and I believe a higher cap, plus moving the age up for the future, would go a long way to solving this. As for everyone getting a tax increase, if you add taxes to low income people, you are asking them to pay a greater percentage of their income that people who pay more. Furthermore, most people in upper income brackets have better resources for creating deductions. I think a tax code overhaul is needed, but I think we have some other things to solve before that happens.
> 
> 
> soloweygirl said:
> ...


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> I don't believe that unions are responsible for all of these for a minute. If they said so and you actually believe them it's no wonder you voted for obama. You are not able to recognize B.S. when you see it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


On what grounds do you not believe it? Please do some research.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

I did. See an earlier response.



aw9358 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe that unions are responsible for all of these for a minute. If they said so and you actually believe them it's no wonder you voted for obama. You are not able to recognize B.S. when you see it.
> ...


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Yes you did say that, but you left it at that. What are your sources?


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

You, too, can do your own research.



aw9358 said:


> Yes you did say that, but you left it at that. What are your sources?


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

No. The thing is, I believe that all those improvements to workers' conditions were achieved by organised labour. I think it's on you to prove that it's not true.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

It's not for me to prove their veracity. The person that originally posted the list should have verified them. Just because you believe them doesn't put the burden of proof on me, thank you very much.



aw9358 said:


> No. The thing is, I believe that all those improvements to workers' conditions were achieved by organised labour. I think it's on you to prove that it's not true.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

How childish this is. Why on earth do we bother? I'm an adult and finished with this idiocy.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

We have better doctors here. Theyshoukd make all the money they deserve. So much schoolong and dedication shoild be rewarded with high pay.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> It's not for me to prove their veracity. The person that originally posted the list should have verified them. Just because you believe them doesn't put the burden of proof on me, thank you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure how you verify that list. There are a number of sources that say similar things, so I guess they're "public knowledge." (I thought you'd love that one!) Seriously, how does one verify every item in such a list. If I told you the list came from a progressive think tank, you wouldn't like it. If it came from CNN, you wouldn't like it. If it came from a "history of unions"? I'm not apt to do any verification because I already believe it's true.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

If you, yarnlady and I , who are miles apart in some areas, can pretty much agree on this topic, why in heavens name can't the representatives we elected in Congress do the same?


thumper5316 said:


> I, too, agree on much of this. Also, I would like to like to see a cap on the amount retirees can make and still receive benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

...and because one believes something, does not make it true . As we've seen, even providing sources will not convince someone of what they do not want to believe. The best we can do is to provide as much factual info that we have ( without turning it into a research paper or literature review). Hopefully, we'll all become better informed, even if our belief set isn't Changed. Peace.



thumper5316 said:


> It's not for me to prove their veracity. The person that originally posted the list should have verified them. Just because you believe them doesn't put the burden of proof on me, thank you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

momeee said:


> ...and because one believes something, does not make it true
> 
> That's for sure!


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

I am in that position of not being able to draw on SS. event tho I paid into it for all my working years, as I have a measly pension, that I, alone funded. I don't understand how our fat cat pols can accept the enormous retirement benefits, and leave working people to struggle. There are definitely different stàndards in play. 
With SS be ing underfunded, with a declining work force, the next generation needs to start saving in earnest.



joeysomma said:


> There is a cap on what you can make if you retire early, it will remain until you reach full retirement age. When I retired at 62, I could earn about $12,000 without paying back Social Security $1 for each $2 earned.
> 
> The Social Security you receive depends on the amount you earn, that you pay SS tax on. If you raise the number above $113,000, the ones who earn above that amount will be getting higher SS benefits when they retire. It is only fair for them to get the higher amount if they are paying in more.
> 
> Obama did not help the SS fund when he reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for the 2 yers.


----------



## Omnivore (Apr 16, 2012)

Absolutely agree. We ourselves aren't totally generous and unselfish when we don't have to encounter our less-fortunate people, so why would we expect any more from others?


rocky1991 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe if MORE people were in unions wages would be better. A large part of gains made over the years by employees in both wages and working conditions were made through the efforts of unions.
> ...


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

I do not think there should be a cap on SS benefits. If you pay in a lot you should get what you deserve back with no cap.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Oh my mom just called me all upset. Where my Dad and Mom live in the suburbs of Cleveland have a very active Senior Community Center. They were just told that there will no longer be available free help with tax returns this year because it can not comply with the NEW FEDERAL REGULATIONS PUT IN PLACE. Seniors have been going there for years for help and guidance for simple tax returns with the help of retired accountants. But thanks to Obama, they are not allowed to help anymore. My dad was one that would help others with their returns, and he did it for years. Now he and his friends are not allowed to be of service to their community.

How is that caring for the Seniors? WTG Obama !!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Obama is the worst. Another example of him as a disaster of a president.


----------



## Martha French (Aug 1, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Apes do have opposable thumbs.


It is that little bone that lies at the base of our index finger in the carpal bones. Triangular or pyramid shape in apes, flatter in humans to give them more hand flexibility. It evolved that way when we, humans, started manufacturing tools. Have you been following the Hobbit enigma, the little creature discovered in the Flores in Indonesia? Very interesting.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Come on, gang! President Obama did not personally put every new regulation into effect that you don't like! Congress still makes the laws in this country.


off2knit said:


> Oh my mom just called me all upset. Where my Dad and Mom live in the suburbs of Cleveland have a very active Senior Community Center. They were just told that there will no longer be available free help with tax returns this year because it can not comply with the NEW FEDERAL REGULATIONS PUT IN PLACE. Seniors have been going there for years for help and guidance for simple tax returns with the help of retired accountants. But thanks to Obama, they are not allowed to help anymore. My dad was one that would help others with their returns, and he did it for years. Now he and his friends are not allowed to be of service to their community.
> 
> How is that caring for the Seniors? WTG Obama !!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Right now, if you make more than $113,000, you stop paying into Social Security for the rest of the year. What I'm referring to is raising that limit to some higher amount - $250,000, for example. If you make that kind of money, paying the additional into SS probably won't mean you have to eat beans and peanut butter for half the year! And, there is a top limit on how much you can get in SS when you do retire, no matter how much you made before then. And, I repeat. President Obama didn't make the change in the SS rate personally. That's what Congress does!


joeysomma said:


> There is a cap on what you can make if you retire early, it will remain until you reach full retirement age. When I retired at 62, I could earn about $12,000 without paying back Social Security $1 for each $2 earned.
> 
> The Social Security you receive depends on the amount you earn, that you pay SS tax on. If you raise the number above $113,000, the ones who earn above that amount will be getting higher SS benefits when they retire. It is only fair for them to get the higher amount if they are paying in more.
> 
> Obama did not help the SS fund when he reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for the 2 yers.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Obama is the worst. Another example of him as a disaster of a president.


Like Bush?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> There is a cap on what you can make if you retire early, it will remain until you reach full retirement age. When I retired at 62, I could earn about $12,000 without paying back Social Security $1 for each $2 earned.
> 
> The Social Security you receive depends on the amount you earn, that you pay SS tax on. If you raise the number above $113,000, the ones who earn above that amount will be getting higher SS benefits when they retire. It is only fair for them to get the higher amount if they are paying in more.
> 
> Obama did not help the SS fund when he reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for the 2 yers.


He did that to help beause the economy was so bad. To help families and individuals.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I do not think there should be a cap on SS benefits. If you pay in a lot you should get what you deserve back with no cap.


Those who can contribute more should. a canp sounds reasonable.


----------



## kaceykat (Jan 23, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is the worst. Another example of him as a disaster of a president.
> ...


Tina Brown of Newsweek/HuffPo: "Obama would be impeached by now on drones if he were Bush..."

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tina-brown-to-bill-maher-obama-%E2%80%98would-be-impeached-by-now-on-drones%E2%80%99-if-he-were-bush/

So if it's a tie between them for disaster-ness, I'd wish for Bush back just to get the $1.99 gas price ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> No. The thing is, I believe that all those improvements to workers' conditions were achieved by organised labour. I think it's on you to prove that it's not true.


Oh, Ingried, you are back with all of your talk but no show! What a sentence: I think it's on you to "prove" that it's not "true!" Shame, Shame on you!


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Janeway said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > No. The thing is, I believe that all those improvements to workers' conditions were achieved by organised labour. I think it's on you to prove that it's not true.
> ...


Shame, shame on me? Hilarious.

Excuse me, I am not Ingried. If you check back you will find I have been here for some time. But I suppose fact-checking is not in some people's repertoire.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Martha French said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Apes do have opposable thumbs.
> ...


My question is: If we were once Apes, then why are they "not" still becoming human? Why did they stop? Somewhere there should be an Ape who is halfway becoming human and I don't mean just walking upright!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > aw9358 said:
> ...


Oh, you are Ingried as she made some of the same statements as you are making so deny if you want but I know the truth!


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Oh my mom just called me all upset. Where my Dad and Mom live in the suburbs of Cleveland have a very active Senior Community Center. They were just told that there will no longer be available free help with tax returns this year because it can not comply with the NEW FEDERAL REGULATIONS PUT IN PLACE. Seniors have been going there for years for help and guidance for simple tax returns with the help of retired accountants. But thanks to Obama, they are not allowed to help anymore. My dad was one that would help others with their returns, and he did it for years. Now he and his friends are not allowed to be of service to their community.
> 
> How is that caring for the Seniors? WTG Obama !!!!!!!!!!!


To blame Obama for the lack of free tax help at the senior center is ridiculous. The senior center in our city offers free tax preparation for seniors as does the center in the neighboring city. I happen to know two of the people who provide the service. I can't believe you'd say such a thing.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Janeway said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > Janeway said:
> ...


I have seen the light. I know who I am and can prove it. You don't know who I am, yet you "know" I'm someone else. I think I finally realise how this religion thing works.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Janeway, trust me. I know for a fact that aw9358 is NOT Ingried.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Thanks Andrea, but do you really think that will help someone like that omniscient being?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


Finally we agree on the subject of abortion! In case of rape, a woman "should" have a choice as to have that fetus or not!


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > aw9358 said:
> ...


Janeway, where's my apology?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Janeway, trust me. I know for a fact that aw9358 is NOT Ingried.


OK, I trust your word, but she "must" be Ingried's twin as no other person could write as Ingried does. Same wording, same thoughts, etc., so they are identical!


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

So sorry to hear your news.Seniors live on so little resources now that they cannot afford any more expenses. I do believe that this is only the beginning of small changes- take-aways- by 0 and some will wake up when all the little ones add up to an enormous cost and loss of what we once had.



off2knit said:


> Oh my mom just called me all upset. Where my Dad and Mom live in the suburbs of Cleveland have a very active Senior Community Center. They were just told that there will no longer be available free help with tax returns this year because it can not comply with the NEW FEDERAL REGULATIONS PUT IN PLACE. Seniors have been going there for years for help and guidance for simple tax returns with the help of retired accountants. But thanks to Obama, they are not allowed to help anymore. My dad was one that would help others with their returns, and he did it for years. Now he and his friends are not allowed to be of service to their community.
> 
> How is that caring for the Seniors? WTG Obama !!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> Thanks Andrea, but do you really think that will help someone like that omniscient being?


Now, now, no name calling as I only "called" you Ingried, but here you go calling me an "omniscient being!" Shame still applies, where is my Apology?


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Janeway said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Janeway, trust me. I know for a fact that aw9358 is NOT Ingried.
> ...


Very big of you. You could try this thing called "reading". I have read Ingried's postings and they are nothing like mine. So again, where's my apology?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

momeee said:


> So sorry to hear your news.Seniors live on so little resources now that they cannot afford any more expenses. I do believe that this is only the beginning of small changes- take-aways- by 0 and some will wake up when all the little ones add up to an enormous cost and loss of what we once had.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, so true as the same thing has happened here with the tax help as now we will have to "pay" to have them done.

WTG Obo!


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Forgive me for being dense, but I don't understand Obama's role in disallowing volunteers from assisting seniors with their tax forms.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Again, this is the govt. controlling our lives...why should anyone's earning capacity be capped? There shouldn't be a penalty; taxation is penalty enough. When one looks at this and Welfare/entitlement benefits, it is easy to see why so many choose to not work. We need to reward ambition and make it easier for people to be self sufficient.



joeysomma said:


> The cap I mentioned is what you can EARN if you start collecting Social Security benefits early.
> 
> The amount of Social Security benefits will depend on what you earn in your working lifetime.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Janeway said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Andrea, but do you really think that will help someone like that omniscient being?
> ...


You've managed it at last. I have tried to be at least a little light-hearted but now I'm really upset. You must really enjoy your vocation. Thanks.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> Yes you did say that, but you left it at that. What are your sources?


This is what I'm talking you are always answering a question with a question! Do some research on your own or don't you know how?

I'm out of here for physical therapy so argue with someone else as I don't want anymore conversations with you. You rant on and on page after page of nothingness!

Omniscient being out!


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

kaceykat said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Lukelucy said:
> ...


As if the President has control over gas prices......tell me what he should do to lower gas prices right now?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

alcameron said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > Oh my mom just called me all upset. Where my Dad and Mom live in the suburbs of Cleveland have a very active Senior Community Center. They were just told that there will no longer be available free help with tax returns this year because it can not comply with the NEW FEDERAL REGULATIONS PUT IN PLACE. Seniors have been going there for years for help and guidance for simple tax returns with the help of retired accountants. But thanks to Obama, they are not allowed to help anymore. My dad was one that would help others with their returns, and he did it for years. Now he and his friends are not allowed to be of service to their community.
> ...


Alcameron..and why can't you believe she would say such a thing? I am finding this coversation very circular, always coming bavk to the same point........the hatred of Obama and eerything he has done or has percceived to have done, very tiresome. However I admire your tenacity and intelligence even if "they" don't. I love the fact that you post facts and not talking pints,,,,,,,,,,,,Keep it up,,,,,,we need people like you. Your Rock!!


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

There is a limit to what you can collect in Social Security. There always has been. It does depend on lifetime earnings. Who do you think has operated Social Security from the beginning? The system has been operating since the 1930's, I believe, and it has been tweaked from time to time, adding disabled people and children whose parents die before the children are 18. Because those people often do not add to the dollars available in the SS pool the rate taken out of paychecks has been changed. It has also been standard for people who are collecting SS to have their payments reduced because they are still earning an income. This stops at age 72 (I think that's the age)when they then are able to earn whatever they can but won't have their SS reduced. I do believe that people who make a lot of money should have to continue to pay SS tax during their prime earning years. It amounts to a tiny portion of their total income. Ambition is one thing, people making the big incomes will hardly miss a few dollars - and they have access to all those tax deductions, capital gains advantages, etc., that most people don't get.


momeee said:


> Again, this is the govt. controlling our lives...why should anyone's earning capacity be capped? There shouldn't be a penalty; taxation is penalty enough. When one looks at this and Welfare/entitlement benefits, it is easy to see why so many choose to not work. We need to reward ambition and make it easier for people to be self sufficient.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Janeway said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > thumper5316 said:
> ...


Actually abortion should be aailable to any woman who wants one. It is the law and all the reps are doing is pissing off women all over this country witht heir war on women, You don't want an abortion don't have one. Don't force me to follow your religious perceptions, my religion or
lack thereof, does not place those restrictions on me. I do not bleieve that life begins at concception.


----------



## dora mac (Nov 15, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


Ditto :thumbup:


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


Sounds like war on babies to me.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


I have to reluctantly agree. I say reluctantly because, with the number of them performed each year, it tells me the depths to which our gender has sunk.

Rocky, when does life, in your opinion, begin? At what point is it valued?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > Israle Antiquities Authority
> ...


Right. Those who believe in evolution also have faith - faith that the THEORY of evolution is correct. It's still faith. Science is in its infancy - no, not even that. Science, as we know it, is embryonic.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

alcameron said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > soloweygirl said:
> ...


It is their company and they have the right to pay themselves what they choose. If Americans were not only interested in getting the cheapest price for an item, then more manufacturing jobs would still be in this country. It is not a one sided problem.


----------



## Omnivore (Apr 16, 2012)

Here's some of my family-members at a recent picnic where Aunty Joy's using a tool to bash-in nuts to get at the meat inside. Little Benjamin's our pride and joy and a tribute to prolonged breast-feeding.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Omnivore said:


> Here's some of my family-members at a recent picnic where Aunty Joy's using a tool to bash-in nuts to get at the meat inside. Little Benjamin's our pride and joy and a tribute to prolonged breast-feeding.


Oh, thanks but you forgot to show us how Aunty Joy drives to and fro--please do so with all of the other things we "humans" do daily!


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> Right now, if you make more than $113,000, you stop paying into Social Security for the rest of the year. What I'm referring to is raising that limit to some higher amount - $250,000, for example. If you make that kind of money, paying the additional into SS probably won't mean you have to eat beans and peanut butter for half the year! And, there is a top limit on how much you can get in SS when you do retire, no matter how much you made before then. And, I repeat. President Obama didn't make the change in the SS rate personally. That's what Congress does!
> 
> 
> joeysomma said:
> ...


Why does everything have to be so unequal? No matter what is proposed, it is the rich (perceived) that always need to pay more. This is sending a message to our children and GC to not be successful because the gov't will only take it away. That is a terrible lesson.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> kaceykat said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


How about opening up all areas of gas production and set about getting more refineries built, restored and updated. We have the resources to keep our gas prices lower. Right now the prices are on an upward trend to be the highest for the month of February in years. Historically, January and February are months for low gas prices.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

The National Academy of Science states that the term Theory, as in Theory of Evolution, does not mean something that hasn't been proved. It says that theory, in this case - and many other Scientific Thoeries - means that there is such an overwhelming body of evidence that is does not need to be proved any longer. That is evidence - NOT faith! The Creation Theory has no evidence of its truth.


bonbf3 said:


> aw9358 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

All I can say is that the inequality seems to be in the growing disparity between the wealthy and everyone else.


soloweygirl said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Right now, if you make more than $113,000, you stop paying into Social Security for the rest of the year. What I'm referring to is raising that limit to some higher amount - $250,000, for example. If you make that kind of money, paying the additional into SS probably won't mean you have to eat beans and peanut butter for half the year! And, there is a top limit on how much you can get in SS when you do retire, no matter how much you made before then. And, I repeat. President Obama didn't make the change in the SS rate personally. That's what Congress does!
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

If you haven't taken your SS you are correct, you aren't reducing your benefits. However, if you work and collect SS, your benefits would be reduced. Certainly the tax benefits are available to everyone, but most middle class people don't have the dollars to take advantage of things that require additional money. They can't take advantage of them if they can't buy into them in the first place.


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > There is a limit to what you can collect in Social Security. There always has been. It does depend on lifetime earnings. Who do you think has operated Social Security from the beginning? The system has been operating since the 1930's, I believe, and it has been tweaked from time to time, adding disabled people and children whose parents die before the children are 18. Because those people often do not add to the dollars available in the SS pool the rate taken out of paychecks has been changed. It has also been standard for people who are collecting SS to have their payments reduced because they are still earning an income. This stops at age 72 (I think that's the age)when they then are able to earn whatever they can but won't have their SS reduced. I do believe that people who make a lot of money should have to continue to pay SS tax during their prime earning years. It amounts to a tiny portion of their total income. Ambition is one thing, people making the big incomes will hardly miss a few dollars - and they have access to all those tax deductions, capital gains advantages, etc., that most people don't get.
> ...


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> If you haven't taken your SS you are correct, you aren't reducing your benefits. However, if you work and collect SS, your benefits would be reduced. Certainly the tax benefits are available to everyone, but most middle class people don't have the dollars to take advantage of things that require additional money. They can't take advantage of them if they can't buy into them in the first place.
> 
> True, but that is no reason to constantly penalize those that can take advantage. It just isn't fair to the majority of the 1% that have worked hard to get where they are today. It sends the wrong message about working hard and achieving one's dreams. After all, this is what built America. This administration wants to flush it down the toilet.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Janeway said:
> ...


No just on religious zealots telling me how I should live my life. I do not tell you how to live your life, be so kind as to leave mine alone,


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Janeway said:
> ...


When it is viable.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Right now, if you make more than $113,000, you stop paying into Social Security for the rest of the year. What I'm referring to is raising that limit to some higher amount - $250,000, for example. If you make that kind of money, paying the additional into SS probably won't mean you have to eat beans and peanut butter for half the year! And, there is a top limit on how much you can get in SS when you do retire, no matter how much you made before then. And, I repeat. President Obama didn't make the change in the SS rate personally. That's what Congress does!
> ...


It is also a terrible lesson to teach Greed. Just how much money is enough?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > kaceykat said:
> ...


Een if he opened up gas fields this minute it would not lower gas prices now. Refineries have to be built, however no one wants them in their backyard. Besides don't you want to stop our dependcy on fossil fuels, or don't you care about climate change and polution?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Country Bumpkins said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


You are told how to live your life when you are prohibited from committing crimes like robbery, rape, murder. Killing a living human being is, in my opinion, murder and should be prohibited.


----------



## DonnieK (Nov 23, 2011)

Hey, I don't know who started this, but I hope admin stops this soon. It is taking up room and if you want to talk politics and religion please please go somewhere else to do it. We all have our own beliefs and this is not going to change anyone. I believe in one God but I am not going to try and force it on anyone else and especially not on a friendly knitting site. Jimney Crickets, stop already.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

As has been said before, if you aren't interested in this thread, don't open it. 
There have been many interesting discussions on a variety of topics put forth, with dissenting arguments, all of which were informative.

Yes, we escape to our needlework but we also need to be fully aware of the issues that affect our lives - even if we don't like what the popular thinking is. 
If nothing more than being better informed, practicing critical analysis, we can hopefully be better informed citizens.



DonnieK said:


> Hey, I don't know who started this, but I hope admin stops this soon. It is taking up room and if you want to talk politics and religion please please go somewhere else to do it. We all have our own beliefs and this is not going to change anyone. I believe in one God but I am not going to try and force it on anyone else and especially not on a friendly knitting site. Jimney Crickets, stop already.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Country Bumpkins said:
> ...


That is your opinion. I have a different opinion.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Sorry, I just don't see that the very tiny percentage would make a bit of difference to people who have multiple homes, yachts, jets, etc. Their lives don't provide me or my children with a bit of incentive. My definition of success must be much different from yours. I believe success comes in many forms, and that extreme wealth generally brings more difficulties than satisfaction. I believe it is important to do the best that you can to provide a decent life for your family, to do some good in the world, and, if you are very lucky, make a difference to somebody. I don't believe success can possibly be defined by how much money you make.


soloweygirl said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > If you haven't taken your SS you are correct, you aren't reducing your benefits. However, if you work and collect SS, your benefits would be reduced. Certainly the tax benefits are available to everyone, but most middle class people don't have the dollars to take advantage of things that require additional money. They can't take advantage of them if they can't buy into them in the first place.
> ...


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Viable: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/viable

Able to live and grow, physically fit to live. So should we all have been euthanize before we could forage for ourselves?

Viable, with or without medical assistance? Premies are not physically fit to live, yet we keep them alive with machines, they are not viable. Fetus have had surgery (heart, spine.....), yet they are not viable.

So Rocky, when is a child viable? When is he or she worth protecting? When is he or she worth medical attention?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


And so we are KP friends who respect each other's opinions. I appreciate that. It is nice to be able to like a person, even if you don't always agree.


----------



## Nocturnal1961 (May 12, 2012)

How did a a thread about Smoking and Obamacare become an Evilution Creation debate?

I care not to get into this cause I am called to be a wittness of the truth yet I'm also told to not cast my pearls before swine. 

As far as having to pay more if you smoke it may affect me. I have not smoked a cigarette since June of 1997. So it shouldn't affect me except I apy for health in surance out of my check for my whole family and my husband and older daughter smoke and if that means more from my check then I feel I should be allowed to taked my spouse and daughter off my insurance.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Nocturnal1961 said:


> How did a a thread about Smoking and Obamacare become an Evilution Creation debate?


I wondered that as well...I've seen threads on the Main board stray off subject, but this does beat all.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Nocturnal1961 said:
> 
> 
> > How did a a thread about Smoking and Obamacare become an Evilution Creation debate?
> ...


Brain wondering off just does that ever so often, don't ya know.  :lol: :lol:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Actual it gets kind of heated, which I don't mind as it is a bit cold here, so nice to have a warm up ever once and a while.  :0


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Over the past week or so we've covered a whole lot of topics. Sometimes it got a little tense, but it is a good place to learn about other people's ideas. I, for one, have found the conversation very valuable!


susanmos2000 said:


> Nocturnal1961 said:
> 
> 
> > How did a a thread about Smoking and Obamacare become an Evilution Creation debate?
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

And just to stay on topic...for once...I haven't had a cigarette for over a week!


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Yay for you, Thumper! Stick to it. Knitting does give you something to do with your hands.


thumper5316 said:


> And just to stay on topic...for once...I haven't had a cigarette for over a week!


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> And just to stay on topic...for once...I haven't had a cigarette for over a week!


Yea good for you :thumbup:


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > And just to stay on topic...for once...I haven't had a cigarette for over a week!
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :lol:


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Folks, the gal AS9348 or whatever her name is, who asked for an apology from me after she called me an omnivorous being is slamming me on her new site "had enough" and she has made a lot of people say horrible things about me.

Evidently she wanted attention and to "ruin" me with her falsehoods. It is very bad! People are agreeing with her who don't even know me and others are making up things about me,

I have told Admin a week or two that someone has hacked my name on KP and KP was off the Internet for a few hours but they have not replied to me yet.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

This is getting ugly...I think everyone in the thread needs to step back and take a deep breath.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Country Bumpkins said:
> ...


Is sending our young to war not murder also? I am not pro abortiona I am pro choice,


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Those that are sent knew what they were getting into when they signed on the dotted line. There was a choice in some way. In abortion decisions the choice is all in the favor of the surviving individual.



rocky1991 said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Viable: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/viable
> 
> Able to live and grow, physically fit to live. So should we all have been euthanize before we could forage for ourselves?
> 
> ...


A fetus of 26 weeks is not vianle, cannot live outside a mother's womb. Abortion is still legal in the US, You have your opinion, I have mine, Let's just agree to disagree.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Most everything that I've read it is 24 weeks. But, for the sake of debate, let's ask this then. At what point is a fetus considered human?



rocky1991 said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > Viable: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/viable
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Hey the sky is really falling meteor fell on Russia poeple injured.
See I told you the sky is falling.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

If a baby at six weeks has a brain I tend to think it becomes a human at conception. Can't see any other way to explain it just how I see it. A life is a life no matter how one can put a spin on it.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

But that brain - and the rest of the body, can't function outside of the womb.


theyarnlady said:


> If a baby at six weeks has a brain I tend to think it becomes a human at conception. Can't see any other way to explain it just how I see it. A life is a life no matter how one can put a spin on it.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> But that brain - and the rest of the body, can't function outside of the womb.
> 
> 
> theyarnlady said:
> ...


Yes I do know that, but this is just my opinion, Life is still life, and until someone proves to me otherwise I will go with that. Just because it can't live outside the body does not to me mean it isn't a life. Just my thoughts on the subject. :thumbup:


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > But that brain - and the rest of the body, can't function outside of the womb.
> ...


This topic has no conclusion. Therefore, I am done with it.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


agree, am running out of steam here. Plus I am getting cold here. Snow rain sleet ever other day. Can't stand the change in temps ever day. :thumbup:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


O.k. what the new topic??? I vote for the weather as posted.

Did you see a meteor hit Russia, another one they say higher up is coming around today.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

A human cannot live outside the womb independantly for years and years. It's still dependant on someone for everything.



pardoquilts said:


> But that brain - and the rest of the body, can't function outside of the womb.
> 
> 
> theyarnlady said:
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


Heard about that, supposedly will get within about 17K miles of us, a bit too close for comfort IMO.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


I didn"t know it would be that close wow, I am with you, don't want it that close either.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Yes, I'm hoping my son doesn't hear anything about this at school today...he's a worrier, and of course I won't be there to reassure him.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Yes, I'm hoping my son doesn't hear anything about this at school today...he's a worrier, and of course I won't be there to reassure him.


Oh thats the worst thing, little ones need comfort don't they. So much news out there lately of the bad things and really hard to protect them from it.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Thanks for starting new topic, so much nicer than going off the deep end about things that we can not change.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janeway said:


> Folks, the gal AS9348 or whatever her name is, who asked for an apology from me after she called me an omnivorous being is slamming me on her new site "had enough" and she has made a lot of people say horrible things about me.
> 
> Evidently she wanted attention and to "ruin" me with her falsehoods. It is very bad! People are agreeing with her who don't even know me and others are making up things about me,
> 
> I have told Admin a week or two that someone has hacked my name on KP and KP was off the Internet for a few hours but they have not replied to me yet.


That should be stopped by administration. This is no place for bullying. Ridiculous.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Agree with bf 3 she started a site to just go off on Janeway, I feel that if one is upset with what they precieve as mean then Pm that person and make peace. 

Thats what I do, doesn't always work, but at the least I did make an effort. i know Janeway has done this, and I notice one lady who seems to feel she can still be nasty even after they became friends.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Agree with bf 3 she started a site to just go off on Janeway, I feel that if one is upset with what they precieve as mean then Pm that person and make peace.
> 
> Thats what I do, doesn't always work, but at the least I did make an effort. i know Janeway has done this, and I notice one lady who seems to feel she can still be nasty even after they became friends.


Thanks as yes, we all have disagreed on this site, but are still "talking" to each other. We do have a right to voice our opinions, but that woman has gone nuts saying she is leaving, but when she started getting attention, she is staying on KP.

Talk about a trip! Cannot remember name as I was so shocked but one woman said I told her I was glad she was roughed up on her own porch for wearing a Tea Party badge! I never said that but others are saying they "now" don't like me either and are calling be bad names!

AS9358 or whatever was on here for a short time, but left without saying anything but called me names then left to start the other site. I have not read it this AM but did reply to others last night saying they were wrong.

At least on this site, we can disagree but still talk without starting other sites to slam another person.

Did not know I would be bullied on KP for having a different thought process than AS9358.

I'm off to physical therapy today so won't be online today.


----------



## lukka (Dec 16, 2012)

I'm passing along some info that I believe to be very important, the website is www.regulations.gov you can plug in 148500 in the search and the title will be"Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage." when you click on that it is available in pdf and is 73 pgs. long. It is the irs roll in obamacare, also it is just the regulations for 2013, so "to be cont." comes to mind. Again I'm NOT telling you to read or print this, I am putting it out there for any interested person that will be effected.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Rocky, 
That is a hard question.... Have you ever been in a NICU? I have...There are many 26 week fetuses that live and have healthy, productive lives. And, as too many people know many 40 week fetuses are not viable...how, why?

I don't know what is an 'absolute' for viability and would never be the one to determine it. But with our expert medical care in the US miracles happen every day. 

There are some who would argue that the expense of saving those little lives is too great, or that they wouldn't want their insurance premiums to be increased due to those measures. All kinds of people have all kinds of beliefs and values.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

thanks Lukka. Isn't the internet wonderful? A veritable library at our fingertips. If only days were longer....


lukka said:


> I'm passing along some info that I believe to be very important, the website is www.regulations.gov you can plug in 148500 in the search and the title will be"Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage." when you click on that it is available in pdf and is 73 pgs. long. It is the irs roll in obamacare, also it is just the regulations for 2013, so "to be cont." comes to mind. Again I'm NOT telling you to read or print this, I am putting it out there for any interested person that will be effected.


----------



## lukka (Dec 16, 2012)

Your so right momee, I didn't know that an employee, that works for a company that pays their healthcare, will have to claim that paid healthcare as income and pay tax on it.I also find out that it will take 81 additional irs agents just to monitor tanning salons to make sure they are paying their 10% obamacare excise tax.Price tag to the taxpayer 11.5 million.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Janeway, I don't agree with the things you say here. I agree with the person who started "Had Enough". However, it seems absolutely wrong for her to start the topic "Had Enough" just to bash and insult you. I've sent a PM to Admin asking that the topic "Had Enough" be shut down.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

And I said that I was wrong to start that thread, given my state at the time.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

If you check the "Had Enough" thread you'll see that aw9358 did not start it to bash Janeaway, she merely said she was too upset to post anymore and gave a brief explanation as to why. Other members (most of whom had had unpleasant encounters with Janeway) jumped in at that point to offer their support and relate their own experiences, and from that point the thing took off--even after aw9358 asked folks to stop posting on the topic.

I do agree that this site is no place for name-calling, but in my opinion it's far worse to speak reasonably in the threads and, at the same time, fire off vicious kidney punches ie poison pen letters to site member's private mailboxes. Janeway claims someone hacked into her account to do so, but I can't imagine why anyone would bother. Nonetheless it's a despicable practice, and if I ever receive such a PM I'm going to post it for all to see.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> A human cannot live outside the womb independantly for years and years. It's still dependant on someone for everything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thumper you are absolutely correct and you have completely changed my perspective on the beginning of life. You have so convinced me that I am now a diehard Republican rignt winger, Thank you so much for making my life complete. Now I ccan preach to all those Liberals, Godless progressives. :lol: :lol:


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

We don't have any choice, however!


theyarnlady said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Lukka You are smarter than your years. I'm pleased that you posted that site. Isn't it amazing that there is more truth to be found by going to the primary site for the real thing. Too bad the USA public relies so heavily on the mainstream media for their info upon which they base their opinions. And there is so much more to this that will become reality only too late.



lukka said:


> Your so right momee, I didn't know that an employee, that works for a company that pays their healthcare, will have to claim that paid healthcare as income and pay tax on it.I also find out that it will take 81 additional irs agents just to monitor tanning salons to make sure they are paying their 10% obamacare excise tax.Price tag to the taxpayer 11.5 million.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

RUKnitting said:


> Lukka You are smarter than your years. I'm pleased that you posted that site. Isn't it amazing that there is more truth to be found by going to the primary site for the real thing. Too bad the USA public relies so heavily on the mainstream media for their info upon which they base their opinions. And there is so much more to this that will become reality only too late.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

You're obviously humoring me but it's nice that you admitted that I'm correct. Doubt the changed perspective thingy...  :-D



rocky1991 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > A human cannot live outside the womb independantly for years and years. It's still dependant on someone for everything.
> ...


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

I took your lead and also sent an opinion to the Admin. after checking out Had Enough. It appears several posters jumped to judge without knowing whereof they speak. Also I don't appreciate anyone defaming another. It is mean spirited and serves no intellectual purpose and shows no propensity to same, only to defame another human being.


SeattleSoul said:


> Janeway, I don't agree with the things you say here. I agree with the person who started "Had Enough". However, it seems absolutely wrong for her to start the topic "Had Enough" just to bash and insult you. I've sent a PM to Admin asking that the topic "Had Enough" be shut down.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> If you check the "Had Enough" thread you'll see that aw9358 did not start it to bash Janeaway, she merely said she was too upset to post anymore and gave a brief explanation as to why. Other members (most of whom had had unpleasant encounters with Janeway) jumped in at that point to offer their support and relate their own experiences, and from that point the thing took off--even after aw9358 asked folks to stop posting on the topic.
> 
> I do agree that this site is no place for name-calling, but in my opinion it's far worse to speak reasonably in the threads and, at the same time, fire off vicious kidney punches ie poison pen letters to site member's private mailboxes. Janeway claims someone hacked into her account to do so, but I can't imagine why anyone would bother. Nonetheless it's a despicable practice, and if I ever receive such a PM I'm going to post it for all to see.


Whatever aw9358's original reason for starting "Had Enough" it very quickly turned into the "Bash Janeway" topic. Seems like some people wanted to whisper behind her back. How about confronting what's problematic about how Janeway expresses herself here where the problem started?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


Everyone who owns a business is not greedy. Just because someone wants to work hard, build a business, purchase a house, cars, etc., doesn't make him/her greedy. What a view you have of your fellow human beings. What is enough for me might not be enough for my neighbor, as our wants and needs will be different. Who are you to judge? Who is the government to judge? This nation was built on capitalism and is slowly being destroyed by anti-capitalists.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


Once there is a viable alternative to fossil fuels, I'm for it. I don't believe in climate change and there are many regulations that address pollution. Many strides are being made to deal with pollution and they are working. I do care about it.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I don't understand "not believing" in climate change. It is happening, without a doubt. Have you checked out the satelite views of the shrinking polar ice caps? This, unlike some of our discussions on this site, is not a question of religious belief, or political opinion.


soloweygirl said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > soloweygirl said:
> ...


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> Sorry, I just don't see that the very tiny percentage would make a bit of difference to people who have multiple homes, yachts, jets, etc. Their lives don't provide me or my children with a bit of incentive. My definition of success must be much different from yours. I believe success comes in many forms, and that extreme wealth generally brings more difficulties than satisfaction. I believe it is important to do the best that you can to provide a decent life for your family, to do some good in the world, and, if you are very lucky, make a difference to somebody. I don't believe success can possibly be defined by how much money you make.
> 
> 
> soloweygirl said:
> ...


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

I answered you on the other link. What do you gain but stirring everything so much.


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> If you check the "Had Enough" thread you'll see that aw9358 did not start it to bash Janeaway, she merely said she was too upset to post anymore and gave a brief explanation as to why. Other members (most of whom had had unpleasant encounters with Janeway) jumped in at that point to offer their support and relate their own experiences, and from that point the thing took off--even after aw9358 asked folks to stop posting on the topic.
> 
> I do agree that this site is no place for name-calling, but in my opinion it's far worse to speak reasonably in the threads and, at the same time, fire off vicious kidney punches ie poison pen letters to site member's private mailboxes. Janeway claims someone hacked into her account to do so, but I can't imagine why anyone would bother. Nonetheless it's a despicable practice, and if I ever receive such a PM I'm going to post it for all to see.


I am one of the people who posted. I am one of the people who has received a scolding from Seattle Soul and nasty poisonous pms from Janeway- I have watched people be hurt like I was hurt, and have watched insults fly both publicly and privately, and have received the same.

SS feels she is the arbitrator of all of our posts - I don't agree -I have told her publicly that I won't tolerate her judging my posts privately or publicly. As long as KP allows these threads we have a right to express our feelings especially when people are hurt so much they are thinking of leaving KP. especially when it has been going on for months- hurting people right and left.
The original postert did absolutely nothing wrong - and neither did those who have experienced the nastiness and posted the truth and asked her not to let anyone drive her away. One person can be nasty, vicious, post pms that are unbelievable, and be protected from someone answering back by opening another thread? I don't think so. I have seen others leave because of both of them.

I have asked admin to remove my post there, not because I feel I was wrong, but because I saw the post saying she wanted it left alone. Then SS got involved, as she always does.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> I don't understand "not believing" in climate change. It is happening, without a doubt. Have you checked out the satelite views of the shrinking polar ice caps? This, unlike some of our discussions on this site, is not a question of religious belief, or political opinion.
> 
> 
> soloweygirl said:
> ...


The climate does change. It follows cycles. Some cycles are warmer than others. We were taught, during the 1970's, that by the new century the world would be covered in ice. That obviously hasn't happened. Then it was global warming, when that didn't materialize, it is now climate change. How many scientists' theories about climate change have been proven to be false, how many doctored to get the results they wanted? Earth has been through many cycles and it is still here. Climate change and the climate changing are different things. JMO, yours will differ.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > soloweygirl said:
> ...


How about the businesses that do povide health insurance for their employees. Is capitalism a synonym for Greed? How about helping our fellow Americans by cutting some of the profit margin and giving healthcare. do you not want people in this coumtry to have healthcare? What do you want them to do? If they have barely enough money for food and housing, how can they afford healthcare? Are higher and higher profits doing anything to help our country/econmy, except to make those 1% get richer and richer? what about the middle class and the working poor? Notice workers salaries have not risen with the !% profit gains. do you not care about the disparity between the rich and midleclass in this country? Then you must be one of the haves.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > soloweygirl said:
> ...


Don't believe in sciene? 99% of scientists believe in climate cvhange. Do you not believe that what we have here on Earth is finite? Once something is gone it is hone forever. Once oil is gone, what will you ddo? Once the natural gas is used up what will you do? Better to start now and find alternaties than wait for disaster to hit.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I just don't see that the very tiny percentage would make a bit of difference to people who have multiple homes, yachts, jets, etc. Their lives don't provide me or my children with a bit of incentive. My definition of success must be much different from yours. I believe success comes in many forms, and that extreme wealth generally brings more difficulties than satisfaction. I believe it is important to do the best that you can to provide a decent life for your family, to do some good in the world, and, if you are very lucky, make a difference to somebody. I don't believe success can possibly be defined by how much money you make.
> ...


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


You do go off on tangents. Chill out. I never said anything about not wanting people to have health care or insurance. Where do you get this stuff? Are higher and higher taxes doing anything for our country/economy, except make the middle class and working poor poorer and poorer? There will always be a disparity between classes in this country. It is part of capitalism. It's not a perfect system, but it is what built this country. I have worked hard for what I have and I don't feel the government should just take it away from me just because they think that's "fair". That is theft. It's a pity that you so hate those that have benefited from capitalism. Not every capitalist is greedy.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


1. Never said I don't believe in science.
2. please provide sources for the 99% of scientists that believe in climate change.
3. Once something is gone it is not necessarily gone for ever. Gardens revolve around cycles. They are planted, they grow, are harvested, new seeds produced and are planted again. 
4. I will not be around when all the oil and natural gas is used up. Alternatives are constantly being discovered and some will be just the solution.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Designer1234 said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > If you check the "Had Enough" thread you'll see that aw9358 did not start it to bash Janeaway, she merely said she was too upset to post anymore and gave a brief explanation as to why. Other members (most of whom had had unpleasant encounters with Janeway) jumped in at that point to offer their support and relate their own experiences, and from that point the thing took off--even after aw9358 asked folks to stop posting on the topic.
> ...


Bravo! I agree with you 100%.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Susanmos2000, I think confronting Janeway with an intention of getting her to improve her behaviour here is the job of all those who are participating in this topic. I don't plan to join in the discussions here from now on as I am sure you and the rest of the particpants in this topic would like that. I hope all of you can find a better way to get along.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Susanmos2000, I think confronting Janeway with an intention of getting her to improve her behaviour here is the job of all those who are participating in this topic. I don't plan to join in the discussions here from now on as I am sure I don't have anything more to contribute. I hope all of you can find a better way to get along.


Sigh...so now you feel it's your task to dictate who may or may not participate in these discussions? Lovely.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Climate Change and Global Warming are names for the same thing. I can't be responsible for what you were taught in the 1970s. I never was taught that. While it is possible for someone to doctor the results of their scientific inquiries, the vast majority only report what they find. There is a peer review process which keeps everyone pretty honest. If an experiment cannot be replicated, it is considered either a fluke, or that there was an error in the experiment. Nobody is saying that the earth is going to disappear. What they are saying is that Global Warming will cause changes in the ice caps and elsewhere that will have a very serious effect on our population centers, our continents and our agriculture. I truly don't understand why this is up for discussion. It is clearly happening.


soloweygirl said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand "not believing" in climate change. It is happening, without a doubt. Have you checked out the satelite views of the shrinking polar ice caps? This, unlike some of our discussions on this site, is not a question of religious belief, or political opinion.
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

I


theyarnlady said:


> Agree with bf 3 she started a site to just go off on Janeway, I feel that if one is upset with what they precieve as mean then Pm that person and make peace.
> 
> Thats what I do, doesn't always work, but at the least I did make an effort. i know Janeway has done this, and I notice one lady who seems to feel she can still be nasty even after they became friends.


I agree, yarnlady!


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janeway said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > Agree with bf 3 she started a site to just go off on Janeway, I feel that if one is upset with what they precieve as mean then Pm that person and make peace.
> ...


Just let it go, Jane. It's not worth your time. They're children.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Hummmm

Since when is Climate Change and global warming the same thing?

The earth has always had climate change, it has been colder it has been warmer. The Great Lakes were formed from melting glaciers, which is why there are salt mines under the Lake Erie. Man had nothing to do with that warming. 

Who caused "The Dust Bowl"?


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Poor farming practices contributed considerably to the Dust Bowl. Climate Change is a term that is used now so that people don't get their undies in a bundle about Global Warming. There is almost no respected scientist who doesn't believe that people have created a huge change in the world's climate!


off2knit said:


> Hummmm
> 
> Since when is Climate Change and global warming the same thing?
> 
> ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> If you check the "Had Enough" thread you'll see that aw9358 did not start it to bash Janeaway, she merely said she was too upset to post anymore and gave a brief explanation as to why. Other members (most of whom had had unpleasant encounters with Janeway) jumped in at that point to offer their support and relate their own experiences, and from that point the thing took off--even after aw9358 asked folks to stop posting on the topic.
> 
> I do agree that this site is no place for name-calling, but in my opinion it's far worse to speak reasonably in the threads and, at the same time, fire off vicious kidney punches ie poison pen letters to site member's private mailboxes. Janeway claims someone hacked into her account to do so, but I can't imagine why anyone would bother. Nonetheless it's a despicable practice, and if I ever receive such a PM I'm going to post it for all to see.


I did not send aw9358, so if she is saying that then she is wrong! Have you read how mean she has been to me?

Yes, my name has been hacked by someone as my son-in-law who is an IT mgr had to work on the Ipad and my other computer as both were hacked. Someone had been into my email so they had access to everything in my mailbox.

I notified Admin almost 2 weeks ago that people were sending me a PM asking questions that I did not know anything about? KP also was "down" for a few hours so I may not be the only person hacked. Time will tell!

I have not had any issues with you so don't understand why you are saying anything to me. When others get involved, with words being said it creates more problems such as those people who responded to the site "had enough."


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> And I said that I was wrong to start that thread, given my state at the time.


Then why don't you ask admin to remove the thread, I was completely shocked that you would do such a thing as bash me just because I thought you were someone else .

I did "not" send you a PM so where did that untruth come from?


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Climate Change is a term that is used now so that people don't get their undies in a bundle about Global Warming. There is almost no respected scientist who doesn't believe that people have created a huge change in the world's climate!

True, but it is not a new problem.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Air-Pollution-Has-Been-a-Problem-Since-the-Days-of-Ancient-Rome-187936271.html

So we should be very respectful of our lovely earth, I will admit that I am tired of being bullied and yelled at by environmental extremists about how all the problems with polution has been caused during my lifetime. The more the extremists rant and pontificate their hysterical crisis senarios, the more I tune them out. I do what I can to be respectful to my planet; but please admit that if extremist scientists would be rational, factual and give practical information instead of rants, maybe more people would listen.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

For Janeway for the last time:

I never said that you sent me a PM, so please do not call me a liar again. It's all there. Yes, I did say several times on both threads that I was wrong to start the thread when you had upset me so much. If you check what you did not bother reading, you will see that I have never insulted you - "omniscient" was a joke, for heaven's sake, and if you can't see that I apologise.

If you recall, I sympathised with you and condemned the genocide (my word) of your people. I reiterate that I treated you with courtesy and merely asked the same of you, which you did not do. Please stop pretending you are the innocent victim of a terrible slander.

Now, please can this stop? We both know what has gone on. I requested that people stop posting on the other thread and repeat that here. And if you check, it was way before any flak came my way.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Janeway said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > If you check the "Had Enough" thread you'll see that aw9358 did not start it to bash Janeaway, she merely said she was too upset to post anymore and gave a brief explanation as to why. Other members (most of whom had had unpleasant encounters with Janeway) jumped in at that point to offer their support and relate their own experiences, and from that point the thing took off--even after aw9358 asked folks to stop posting on the topic.
> ...


It's true we haven't as yet had any issues, but when I find myself afraid to post because of "Janeway's" or anyone else's reaction then it becomes my business too.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

At least there are still people who are on this site continuing their conversation of disagreeing with other about different subjects. I do not understand why everyone seems to think I'm "bad" for having my own opinions.

Designer, when you PM'd me about wanting me to teach others how I make the triangular pineapple shawl, yes, I did tell you how hateful you were to me on another site.

In the end, I felt we were at least talking without any hatefulness at all--then was shocked to see you had posted on AW9358 site.

Why would you do such a thing? I could have told everyone how mean you were to me in the past, but did not go there. I don't understand!

It seems to me that I cannot disagree with anyone about my opinion without people thinking I'm terrible!

Even on this site, there is a left and a right side-no pun intended where several people are expressing their views without anyone calling them "bad" and blasting them on other sites.

I'm not the "nutty" one on KP because if voicing my opinion is wrong then there is a crowd around me!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > susanmos2000 said:
> ...


You have been posting your opinions so why pick on me as others have disagreed with you--why not pick on them.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

....It is also a terrible lesson to teach Greed. Just how much money is enough?[/quote]

....Everyone who owns a business is not greedy. Just because someone wants to work hard, build a business, purchase a house, cars, etc., doesn't make him/her greedy. What a view you have of your fellow human beings. What is enough for me might not be enough for my neighbor, as our wants and needs will be different. Who are you to judge? Who is the government to judge? This nation was built on capitalism and is slowly being destroyed by anti-capitalists.[/quote]

@soloweygirl: I agree with you. Our country was built on the American dream, capitalism and ambition. Legal immigrants are still praying to come here to try for some of that success. I am a firm believer in capitalism and do not think the govt. should regulate how much of my earnings I "should" be allowed to keep. I see the word 'greed' as a judgmental word... not sure all successful or ambitious people are greedy. Yet, I do believe for some, they are never satisfied, and enough would never be enough. I would rather deal with a person who was greedy and worked hard, than one who was lazy and wanted what I earned without working himself. To me, there is a large difference.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> For Janeway for the last time:
> 
> I never said that you sent me a PM, so please do not call me a liar again. It's all there. Yes, I did say several times on both threads that I was wrong to start the thread when you had upset me so much. If you check what you did not bother reading, you will see that I have never insulted you - "omniscient" was a joke, for heaven's sake, and if you can't see that I apologise.
> 
> ...


Well, it is past time to let this thing go as your writing did sound as if Ingried was writing your posts. I did not think what was said was so bad.

Other people were saying I PM'd you is where that info cane from--see how things get twisted?

Yes, people were slandering me on the site you started and yes I am innocent as when you did not post on this site, I thought you were just not on KP for some reason.

How do you think you would have felt if I had started such a site?

You should read how others are disagreeing without starting a slander site just because they became angry.

I won't post to you again, but will not forget what you have done to me as your "had enough" site remains on KP forever!

I have forgiven you for the hurt you caused, but will remember what happened!


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

The government has been able to decide how much you get to keep for a lot of years. They call it taxes. We cannot run the country without them - it isn't like passing the plate in church. To me, the issue is that the 1% who own big businesses often try to make more money by sending jobs overseas, or keeping wages in this country as low as possible. Right now, most peope are willing to accept darn near any wages so that they at least have a job...but if that is at a company which is cutting costs by doing it on the backs of its employees, that doesn't seem right to me. The CEO of Costco, a very successful company, pays a minimum of $17 an hour, plus health care to employees, AND makes less than $500,000 a year. I call that a person with a conscience.


momeee said:


> ....It is also a terrible lesson to teach Greed. Just how much money is enough?


....Everyone who owns a business is not greedy. Just because someone wants to work hard, build a business, purchase a house, cars, etc., doesn't make him/her greedy. What a view you have of your fellow human beings. What is enough for me might not be enough for my neighbor, as our wants and needs will be different. Who are you to judge? Who is the government to judge? This nation was built on capitalism and is slowly being destroyed by anti-capitalists.[/quote]

@soloweygirl: I agree with you. Our country was built on the American dream, capitalism and ambition. Legal immigrants are still praying to come here to try for some of that success. I am a firm believer in capitalism and do not think the govt. should regulate how much of my earnings I "should" be allowed to keep. I see the word 'greed' as a judgmental word... not sure all successful or ambitious people are greedy. Yet, I do believe for some, they are never satisfied, and enough would never be enough. I would rather deal with a person who was greedy and worked hard, than one who was lazy and wanted what I earned without working himself. To me, there is a large difference.[/quote]


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

The other thing that many forget is that others do not know how a person's money is spent. I could make billions and give billions away. If that were the case, do I really make enough to give away what I want? Am I greedy to make money so that I may CHOOSE HOW TO SPEND IT AND WHOM I HELP? What if I use my money to fund a children's hospital, and need to earn billions to keep it afloat?

I think the issue is not greed, but that of envy. And in this case the very large green snake of envy has raised it's ugly head in the form of class warfare.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> For Janeway for the last time:
> 
> I never said that you sent me a PM, so please do not call me a liar again. It's all there. Yes, I did say several times on both threads that I was wrong to start the thread when you had upset me so much. If you check what you did not bother reading, you will see that I have never insulted you - "omniscient" was a joke, for heaven's sake, and if you can't see that I apologise.
> 
> ...


Saying someone is wrong isn't the same as calling him or her a liar.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

The government "takes money" from almost every person who works for a living (and even those who don't). I don't understand why some people feel so strongly about the government "taking money away" from them (in the form of taxes). We have to pay for the running of the government. We all benefit from the taxes we all pay. Some of us have had this conversation before. It is our responsibility as citizens of this country to pay taxes on our earnings, whether you work hard or not. Just as an aside, people who run their own businesses aren't the only people who work hard.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Sorry, you are wrong. I have lived in the upper 1% - and I'm much happier now, in the middle class. To me, the only reason to have that kind of money is to be able to help people with it. People who give large amounts to charity are also able to deduct those gifts from their taxes.


off2knit said:


> The other thing that many forget is that others do not know how a person's money is spent. I could make billions and give billions away. If that were the case, do I really make enough to give away what I want? Am I greedy to make money so that I may CHOOSE HOW TO SPEND IT AND WHOM I HELP? What if I use my money to fund a children's hospital, and need to earn billions to keep it afloat?
> 
> I think the issue is not greed, but that of envy. And in this case the very large green snake of envy has raised it's ugly head in the form of class warfare.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> The government has been able to decide how much you get to keep for a lot of years. They call it taxes. We cannot run the country without them - it isn't like passing the plate in church. To me, the issue is that the 1% who own big businesses often try to make more money by sending jobs overseas, or keeping wages in this country as low as possible. Right now, most peope are willing to accept darn near any wages so that they at least have a job...but if that is at a company which is cutting costs by doing it on the backs of its employees, that doesn't seem right to me. The CEO of Costco, a very successful company, pays a minimum of $17 an hour, plus health care to employees, AND makes less than $500,000 a year. I call that a person with a conscience.
> 
> 
> momeee said:
> ...


@soloweygirl: I agree with you. Our country was built on the American dream, capitalism and ambition. Legal immigrants are still praying to come here to try for some of that success. I am a firm believer in capitalism and do not think the govt. should regulate how much of my earnings I "should" be allowed to keep. I see the word 'greed' as a judgmental word... not sure all successful or ambitious people are greedy. Yet, I do believe f or some, they are never satisfied, and enough would never be enough. I would rather deal with a person who was greedy and worked hard, than one who was lazy and wanted what I earned without working himself. To me, there is a large difference.[/quote][/quote]

@pardoquilts: the only part of the post that I wrote was what came after @ soloweygirl, so I'm not sure who or what you are replying to. If you backtrack a few pages, you'll see there were more responses in the original that i thought i deleted in the interest of space as well as wanting to respond only to soloweygirl. I understand your feelings but my position is that I pay my taxes...my fair share. A fairer share would be a flat tax for everyone, with fewer or no loopholes. Thus, people who earn more, pay more...which sort of happens now. I don't presume to judge what constitutes an overly generous wage. The American economy would be healthier if there were a person at its helm who understood economics, didn't want class warfare, and actually looked for ways to improve the job situation rather than attempting to take as much as he can from those who have been very successful. I agree that all workers should receive a living wage which the govt. somehow determines. If a business is able to pay higher wages and other benefits, that is great.i know that increasing taxes, etc. will put many businesses


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

momeee said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > The government has been able to decide how much you get to keep for a lot of years. They call it taxes. We cannot run the country without them - it isn't like passing the plate in church. To me, the issue is that the 1% who own big businesses often try to make more money by sending jobs overseas, or keeping wages in this country as low as possible. Right now, most peope are willing to accept darn near any wages so that they at least have a job...but if that is at a company which is cutting costs by doing it on the backs of its employees, that doesn't seem right to me. The CEO of Costco, a very successful company, pays a minimum of $17 an hour, plus health care to employees, AND makes less than $500,000 a year. I call that a person with a conscience.
> ...


[/quote]

@pardoquilts: the only part of the post that I wrote was what came after @ soloweygirl, so I'm not sure who or what you are replying to. If you backtrack a few pages, you'll see there were more responses in the original that i thought i deleted in the interest of space as well as wanting to respond only to soloweygirl. I understand your feelings but my position is that I pay my taxes...my fair share. A fairer share would be a flat tax for everyone, with fewer or no loopholes. Thus, people who earn more, pay more...which sort of happens now. I don't presume to judge what constitutes an overly generous wage. The American economy would be healthier if there were a person at its helm who understood economics, didn't want class warfare, and actually looked for ways to improve the job situation rather than attempting to take as much as he can from those who have been very successful. I agree that all workers should receive a living wage which the govt. somehow determines. If a business is able to pay higher wages and other benefits, that is great.i know that increasing taxes, etc. will put many businesses[/quote]

Are you saying that Obama wants class warfare?? Please, he did not create the wide disparity between the classes in this country!


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > The other thing that many forget is that others do not know how a person's money is spent. I could make billions and give billions away. If that were the case, do I really make enough to give away what I want? Am I greedy to make money so that I may CHOOSE HOW TO SPEND IT AND WHOM I HELP? What if I use my money to fund a children's hospital, and need to earn billions to keep it afloat?
> ...


And the media fuels the fire and encourages "outrage." I don't believe any of them any more.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

A living wage is what it costs for food, clothing and shelterfor yourself and your family, at least as defined by the U.N. I believe the President understands economics quite well, and is not at all interested in class warfare. Profits are up for many businesses - the stock market has risen every week since the first of the year, but businesses are not creating jobs. Wonder why?


momeee said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > The government has been able to decide how much you get to keep for a lot of years. They call it taxes. We cannot run the country without them - it isn't like passing the plate in church. To me, the issue is that the 1% who own big businesses often try to make more money by sending jobs overseas, or keeping wages in this country as low as possible. Right now, most peope are willing to accept darn near any wages so that they at least have a job...but if that is at a company which is cutting costs by doing it on the backs of its employees, that doesn't seem right to me. The CEO of Costco, a very successful company, pays a minimum of $17 an hour, plus health care to employees, AND makes less than $500,000 a year. I call that a person with a conscience.
> ...


[/quote]

@pardoquilts: the only part of the post that I wrote was what came after @ soloweygirl, so I'm not sure who or what you are replying to. If you backtrack a few pages, you'll see there were more responses in the original that i thought i deleted in the interest of space as well as wanting to respond only to soloweygirl. I understand your feelings but my position is that I pay my taxes...my fair share. A fairer share would be a flat tax for everyone, with fewer or no loopholes. Thus, people who earn more, pay more...which sort of happens now. I don't presume to judge what constitutes an overly generous wage. The American economy would be healthier if there were a person at its helm who understood economics, didn't want class warfare, and actually looked for ways to improve the job situation rather than attempting to take as much as he can from those who have been very successful. I agree that all workers should receive a living wage which the govt. somehow determines. If a business is able to pay higher wages and other benefits, that is great.i know that increasing taxes, etc. will put many businesses[/quote]


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> The government has been able to decide how much you get to keep for a lot of years. They call it taxes. We cannot run the country without them - it isn't like passing the plate in church. To me, the issue is that the 1% who own big businesses often try to make more money by sending jobs overseas, or keeping wages in this country as low as possible. Right now, most peope are willing to accept darn near any wages so that they at least have a job...but if that is at a company which is cutting costs by doing it on the backs of its employees, that doesn't seem right to me. The CEO of Costco, a very successful company, pays a minimum of $17 an hour, plus health care to employees, AND makes less than $500,000 a year. I call that a person with a conscience.
> 
> 
> momeee said:
> ...


@soloweygirl: I agree with you. Our country was built on the American dream, capitalism and ambition. Legal immigrants are still praying to come here to try for some of that success. I am a firm believer in capitalism and do not think the govt. should regulate how much of my earnings I "should" be allowed to keep. I see the word 'greed' as a judgmental word... not sure all successful or ambitious people are greedy. Yet, I do believe f or some, they are never satisfied, and enough would never be enough. I would rather deal with a person who was greedy and worked hard, than one who was lazy and wanted what I earned without working himself. To me, there is a large difference.[/quote][/quote]

@pardoquilts: the only part of the post that I wrote was what came after @ soloweygirl, so I'm not sure who or what you are replying to. If you backtrack a few pages, you'll see there were more responses in the original that i thought i deleted in the interest of space as well as wanting to respond only to soloweygirl. I understand your feelings but my position is that I pay my taxes...my fair share. A fairer share would be a flat tax for everyone, with fewer or no loopholes. Thus, people who earn more, pay more...which sort of happens now. I don't presume to judge what constitutes an overly generous wage or income. The American economy would be healthier if there were a person at its helm who understood economics, didn't want class warfare, and actually looked for ways to improve the job situation rather than attempting to take as much as he can from those who have been very successful. I agree that all workers should receive a living wage which the govt. somehow determines. If you feel the min. wage should be higher, perhaps you could contact your representatives and work to improving worker's benefits. I personally don't want any more govt. in my life than there presently is. If a business is willing and able to pay higher wages and other benefits, that is great. I know that increasing taxes, etc. will eliminate currently struggling businesses...more taxes for business isn't how we grow jobs. Ambition, success, free-enterprise, hard work all contributed to want made our country strong. Decline began when it became easier to rely on the govt.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> The government "takes money" from almost every person who works for a living (and even those who don't). I don't understand why some people feel so strongly about the government "taking money away" from them (in the form of taxes). We have to pay for the running of the government. We all benefit from the taxes we all pay. Some of us have had this conversation before. It is our responsibility as citizens of this country to pay taxes on our earnings, whether you work hard or not. Just as an aside, people who run their own businesses aren't the only people who work hard.


Well said. I agree.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > The other thing that many forget is that others do not know how a person's money is spent. I could make billions and give billions away. If that were the case, do I really make enough to give away what I want? Am I greedy to make money so that I may CHOOSE HOW TO SPEND IT AND WHOM I HELP? What if I use my money to fund a children's hospital, and need to earn billions to keep it afloat?
> ...


I agree with your thumbs up! 
The way of responding is confusing...with all the quotes bring reposted, it is difficult to be sure what is being responded to. Any hopes or suggestions as to how it could be simplified? When I try to delete all except what I'm responding to, others are sometimes included.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Meant to post a remark elsewhere.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

It is good that you are happier now. Perhaps you are just expressing your opinion, but some of your responses to individuals about their values could be interpreted as being judgmental and critical.



pardoquilts said:


> Sorry, you are wrong. I have lived in the upper 1% - and I'm much happier now, in the middle class. To me, the only reason to have that kind of money is to be able to help people with it. People who give large amounts to charity are also able to deduct those gifts from their taxes.
> 
> 
> off2knit said:
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


@pardoquilts: the only part of the post that I wrote was what came after @ soloweygirl, so I'm not sure who or what you are replying to. If you backtrack a few pages, you'll see there were more responses in the original that i thought i deleted in the interest of space as well as wanting to respond only to soloweygirl. I understand your feelings but my position is that I pay my taxes...my fair share. A fairer share would be a flat tax for everyone, with fewer or no loopholes. Thus, people who earn more, pay more...which sort of happens now. I don't presume to judge what constitutes an overly generous wage. The American economy would be healthier if there were a person at its helm who understood economics, didn't want class warfare, and actually looked for ways to improve the job situation rather than attempting to take as much as he can from those who have been very successful. I agree that all workers should receive a living wage which the govt. somehow determines. If a business is able to pay higher wages and other benefits, that is great.i know that increasing taxes, etc. will put many businesses[/quote]

Are you saying that Obama wants class warfare?? Please, he did not create the wide disparity between the classes in this country![/quote]

Oh, I knew that would be a target. Yes, I believe he wanted it, he capitalized on it as a community organizer and in both elections. Divide and conquer. No he did not "create" the disparity...and I believe his socialist leaning is his way of remedying it.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Are you saying that Obama wants class warfare?? Please, he did not create the wide disparity between the classes in this country![/quote]

Oh, I knew that would be a target. Yes, I believe he wanted it, he capitalized on it as a community organizer and in both elections. Divide and conquer. No he did not "create" the disparity...and I believe his socialist leaning is his way of remedying it.[/quote]

(I tried to eliminate some of the quoting)
I hope he succeeds. The disparity needs to be remedied.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

alcameron said:


> Are you saying that Obama wants class warfare?? Please, he did not create the wide disparity between the classes in this country!


Oh, I knew that would be a target. Yes, I believe he wanted it, he capitalized on it as a community organizer and in both elections. Divide and conquer. No he did not "create" the disparity...and I believe his socialist leaning is his way of remedying it.[/quote]

(I tried to eliminate some of the quoting)
I hope he succeeds. The disparity needs to be remedied.[/quote]

I truly believe that his socialist ways are dividing the country, and he is doing it on purpose. He is constantly campaigning, and never working. If he wanted the disparity to end, then he would be encouraging job growth, not government growth through fake stimulus packages. He would get out of the way and let businesses try to recreate the 8.5 million jobs that are gone since he became president. The only shovel ready jobs that are available today is to try to clean up all the poop he has created


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> Sorry, you are wrong. I have lived in the upper 1% - and I'm much happier now, in the middle class. To me, the only reason to have that kind of money is to be able to help people with it. People who give large amounts to charity are also able to deduct those gifts from their taxes.
> 
> 
> off2knit said:
> ...


Nope, not wrong. If you were so happy, you would not be griping about how other people spend their money. You would not pontificate to others what to do with their money and make value judgements on what people do with their money and how they spend it.

Personally, it is logic and comments like yours in addition to the Obamacare tax hikes that have made people less likely to be charitable. Why get judged and bashed for trying to be helpful and generous? In your world, no good deed goes unpunished.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

It isn't how they spend their money as much as the fact that they get paid such ridiculous amounts. I am a small business owner. I did not put millions of dollars into our business plan for my salary. In fact, I run a business that sells only products made by people who are, in fact, paid a living wage. I have put every once of my time, talent and treasure into this business for the last 6 years. My two partners and I work very hard to keep our business going because we know that it is doing some very real good in the world. Bigger businesses provide more jobs than our business does, but we are having a direct impact on people who are getting themselves out of poverty through their fair trade enterprises, something I would think you approve of. My quarrel is with the exhorbitant salaries and perks CEOs often earn. I don't believe they work harder than I do. They are able to bamboozle stockholders to believe they are indispensible and so they have to be paid a huge salary or they will take their marbles and go home. Charitable giving is down because people don't have jobs, not because the President is hiking taxes on the rich. He hasn't done that, in part because he doesn't make tax laws. The Republican controlled Congress does. The lack of job creation in the face of huge profits in many big businesses, is a genuine puzzle to many business experts. Community organizer does not equal socialist. It means that he helped people understand that they could have an impact on how things were in their neighborhood, if they worked together. He worked with people who believed they didn't have any power, which is true, to help them make a difference in their own neighborhoods. I don't believe that is socialism. People helping themselves. Isn't that what you preach? And, I don't think you know me well enough to say that I am envious of the 1%. I generally think they are superfluous, and don't spend a lot of time worrying about them. I do look at the kind of salaries they generally make and think about the people who work for them who would like to not have to struggle quite so hard to make ends meet.


off2knit said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, you are wrong. I have lived in the upper 1% - and I'm much happier now, in the middle class. To me, the only reason to have that kind of money is to be able to help people with it. People who give large amounts to charity are also able to deduct those gifts from their taxes.
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

It isn't how they spend their money as much as the fact that they get paid such ridiculous amounts. I am a small business owner. I did not put millions of dollars into our business plan for my salary. In fact, I run a business that sells only products made by people who are, in fact, paid a living wage. I have put every once of my time, talent and treasure into this business for the last 6 years. My two partners and I work very hard to keep our business going because we know that it is doing some very real good in the world. Bigger businesses provide more jobs than our business does, but we are having a direct impact on people who are getting themselves out of poverty through their fair trade enterprises, something I would think you approve of. My quarrel is with the exhorbitant salaries and perks CEOs often earn. I don't believe they work harder than I do. They are able to bamboozle stockholders to believe they are indispensible and so they have to be paid a huge salary or they will take their marbles and go home. Charitable giving is down because people don't have jobs, not because the President is hiking taxes on the rich. He hasn't done that, in part because he doesn't make tax laws. The Republican controlled Congress does. The lack of job creation in the face of huge profits in many big businesses, is a genuine puzzle to many business experts. Community organizer does not equal socialist. It means that he helped people understand that they could have an impact on how things were in their neighborhood, if they worked together. He worked with people who believed they didn't have any power, which is true, to help them make a difference in their own neighborhoods. I don't believe that is socialism. People helping themselves. Isn't that what you preach? And, I don't think you know me well enough to say that I am envious of the 1%. I generally think they are superfluous, and don't spend a lot of time worrying about them. I do look at the kind of salaries they generally make and think about the people who work for them who would like to not have to struggle quite so hard to make ends meet.


off2knit said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, you are wrong. I have lived in the upper 1% - and I'm much happier now, in the middle class. To me, the only reason to have that kind of money is to be able to help people with it. People who give large amounts to charity are also able to deduct those gifts from their taxes.
> ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Janeway, I don't agree with the things you say here. I agree with the person who started "Had Enough". However, it seems absolutely wrong for her to start the topic "Had Enough" just to bash and insult you. I've sent a PM to Admin asking that the topic "Had Enough" be shut down.


Well, tell me how what I've said is worse than what others are saying? You say you agree with AW9358? Did you read the things she said to me?

When you said you reported the bashing Janeway site, you were blasted by others for reporting the site. See how hateful people are?

Have not heard from you for sometime-- have you been ill? Hope you are well.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

momeee said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Mommee:
I agree. And the way the boxes are set up, I can't tell who said what. For a while, some of us were putting the name of the person we're addressing at the top, like I did with this one. Then put your name and the bottom. It helps, but it's hard to let everyone know about it.
Bonbf3


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Janeway, I've read many of your posts and all of the posts on "Had Enough". I didn't see much difference between the unpleasant way you express yourself and the whole tone of "Had Enough", no matter who has posted something there.

There've been several topics filled wth nasty remarks about one person or another. I'm not at all surprised that some people choose to show their lack of quality by making unpleasant remarks to me.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

WOW! You sure left your Christian spirit home today! The President is not a socialist, and he is not a lazy black man! He has taken far fewer vacations than Bush, according to public records. As for getting out of the way of business, does that mean at a cost to the environment and the people who would have poor working conditions?


off2knit said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that Obama wants class warfare?? Please, he did not create the wide disparity between the classes in this country!
> ...


(I tried to eliminate some of the quoting)
I hope he succeeds. The disparity needs to be remedied.[/quote]

I truly believe that his socialist ways are dividing the country, and he is doing it on purpose. He is constantly campaigning, and never working. If he wanted the disparity to end, then he would be encouraging job growth, not government growth through fake stimulus packages. He would get out of the way and let businesses try to recreate the 8.5 million jobs that are gone since he became president. The only shovel ready jobs that are available today is to try to clean up all the poop he has created[/quote]


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Pardo Just when I thought I was understanding you, you tell me you were a small business owner. In contrast to what you say small businesses do provide more jobs. And who am I or You or anyone else to say what another individual makes? Individuals can work the same amt of time but some have more experience, more talent, more education and plain just work smarter so their time may be worth more. In the free market system you are paid what you are worth. And with your small business you may not have had so much stress in meeting a payroll, etc.. I too have had a small professional business practice and I can tell you the taxes are suffocating and the government regulations devour the very essence of your being and your spirit can be thwarted. Had to hire an extra staff member just to oversee and keep up with the govt demands and duplicate procedures. That along with his passion to create new jobs was what attracted me to Romney. He expressed an awareness of all the duplication in our government at all levels and in all departments. And as a small business owner you are an enigma to me.

The Repubs do not control Congress. If they did things would be different. Harry Reid controls the Senate and what bills can be brought to committee and voted on and then sent to the President for her/his approval.


pardoquilts said:


> It isn't how they spend their money as much as the fact that they get paid such ridiculous amounts. I am a small business owner. I did not put millions of dollars into our business plan for my salary. In fact, I run a business that sells only products made by people who are, in fact, paid a living wage. I have put every once of my time, talent and treasure into this business for the last 6 years. My two partners and I work very hard to keep our business going because we know that it is doing some very real good in the world. Bigger businesses provide more jobs than our business does, but we are having a direct impact on people who are getting themselves out of poverty through their fair trade enterprises, something I would think you approve of. My quarrel is with the exorbitant salaries and perks CEOs often earn. I don't believe they work harder than I do. They are able to bamboozle stockholders to believe they are indispensible and so they have to be paid a huge salary or they will take their marbles and go home. Charitable giving is down because people don't have jobs, not because the President is hiking taxes on the rich. He hasn't done that, in part because he doesn't make tax laws. The Republican controlled Congress does. The lack of job creation in the face of huge profits in many big businesses, is a genuine puzzle to many business experts. Community organizer does not equal socialist. It means that he helped people understand that they could have an impact on how things were in their neighborhood, if they worked together. He worked with people who believed they didn't have any power, which is true, to help them make a difference in their own neighborhoods. I don't believe that is socialism. People helping themselves. Isn't that what you preach? And, I don't think you know me well enough to say that I am envious of the 1%. I generally think they are superfluous, and don't spend a lot of time worrying about them. I do look at the kind of salaries they generally make and think about the people who work for them who would like to not have to struggle quite so hard to make ends meet.
> 
> 
> off2knit said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Maybe that's because my business is based on helping other people. I am co-owner of a Fair Trade retail store. Everything in our store is made by artisans who get paid a living wage (not charity) for what they do. They work safely for themselves and the environment, there is tranparency in their cooperatives so everyone knows what is going on, and the artisans are the folks who make the decisions about their business. I truly don't believe that charity is the best way to help other people get a hand up. A sustainable business will give workers a much better chance at success. I don't believe Romney had viable ideas about how to create jobs. As far as I could tell, his idea was to give companies more money by cutting their taxes. Big business gets all kinds of tax writeoffs as it is, without any requirements to actually create jobs - profits and payoffs for their stockholders - but not jobs. I believe Romney's comments about the 47% reflect his true understanding of how most American's live, and that understanding is very far from reality. Comes from living on his father's money.


RUKnitting said:


> Pardo Just when I thought I was understanding you, you tell me you were a small business owner. In contrast to what you say small businesses do provide more jobs. And who am I or You or anyone else to say what another individual makes? Individuals can work the same amt of time but some have more experience, more talent, more education and plain just work smarter so their time may be worth more. In the free market system you are paid what you are worth. And with your small business you may not have had so much stress in meeting a payroll, etc.. I too have had a small professional business practice and I can tell you the taxes are suffocating and the government regulations devour the very essence of your being and your spirit can be thwarted. Had to hire an extra staff member just to oversee and keep up with the govt demands and duplicate procedures. That along with his passion to create new jobs was what attracted me to Romney. He expressed an awareness of all the duplication in our government at all levels and in all departments. And as a small business owner you are an enigma to me.
> 
> The Repubs do not control Congress. If they did things would be different. Harry Reid controls the Senate and what bills can be brought to committee and voted on and then sent to the President for her/his approval.
> 
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Pardo,
I enjoyed reading about your company. You must meet a lot of talented and interesting people. What kinds of things do they make?
Bonnie


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

momeee said:


> ....It is also a terrible lesson to teach Greed. Just how much money is enough?


....Everyone who owns a business is not greedy. Just because someone wants to work hard, build a business, purchase a house, cars, etc., doesn't make him/her greedy. What a view you have of your fellow human beings. What is enough for me might not be enough for my neighbor, as our wants and needs will be different. Who are you to judge? Who is the government to judge? This nation was built on capitalism and is slowly being destroyed by anti-capitalists.[/quote]

@soloweygirl: I agree with you. Our country was built on the American dream, capitalism and ambition. Legal immigrants are still praying to come here to try for some of that success. I am a firm believer in capitalism and do not think the govt. should regulate how much of my earnings I "should" be allowed to keep. I see the word 'greed' as a judgmental word... not sure all successful or ambitious people are greedy. Yet, I do believe for some, they are never satisfied, and enough would never be enough. I would rather deal with a person who was greedy and worked hard, than one who was lazy and wanted what I earned without working himself. To me, there is a large difference.[/quote]

Thank you momeee. I don't understand why working hard and earning money (or a lot of money) should be a bad thing.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> The government has been able to decide how much you get to keep for a lot of years. They call it taxes. We cannot run the country without them - it isn't like passing the plate in church. To me, the issue is that the 1% who own big businesses often try to make more money by sending jobs overseas, or keeping wages in this country as low as possible. Right now, most peope are willing to accept darn near any wages so that they at least have a job...but if that is at a company which is cutting costs by doing it on the backs of its employees, that doesn't seem right to me. The CEO of Costco, a very successful company, pays a minimum of $17 an hour, plus health care to employees, AND makes less than $500,000 a year. I call that a person with a conscience.
> 
> 
> momeee said:
> ...


@soloweygirl: I agree with you. Our country was built on the American dream, capitalism and ambition. Legal immigrants are still praying to come here to try for some of that success. I am a firm believer in capitalism and do not think the govt. should regulate how much of my earnings I "should" be allowed to keep. I see the word 'greed' as a judgmental word... not sure all successful or ambitious people are greedy. Yet, I do believe for some, they are never satisfied, and enough would never be enough. I would rather deal with a person who was greedy and worked hard, than one who was lazy and wanted what I earned without working himself. To me, there is a large difference.[/quote][/quote]

The government is going way overboard on the ability to tax. Now they want to tax certain people only because they determined that they can afford to pay more taxes. The government is doing this in the name of fairness. How is this fair to those that are getting an increase in taxes, while others remain untouched? Yes taxes pay for government programs. Everyone can take advantage of government programs. Yet everyone does not pay taxes. Now the government wants to tax certain people more while others continue to pay nothing. It's absurd.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

alcameron said:


> Are you saying that Obama wants class warfare?? Please, he did not create the wide disparity between the classes in this country!


Oh, I knew that would be a target. Yes, I believe he wanted it, he capitalized on it as a community organizer and in both elections. Divide and conquer. No he did not "create" the disparity...and I believe his socialist leaning is his way of remedying it.[/quote]

(I tried to eliminate some of the quoting)
I hope he succeeds. The disparity needs to be remedied.[/quote]

The disparity exists in all societies in one form or another. In communist, socialist, capitalist, underdeveloped, etc., all countries have their rich and poor. Not all have a middle class.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

My moral compass tells me that it IS fair for people who have more to pay more. People who can barely survive shouldn't even have to pay. It's just what I believe. We've been through this before. I was a salaried employee, and my husband owned a business. We both worked very hard, paid our taxes, and didn't complain about having to pay taxes. It's our responsibility as citizens of the US. Did I love it that my tax dollars went to pay for two wars that I disagreed with? No, but, we still paid our taxes. We don't always agree with everything our government does, but what goes around comes around. There are certain things one has to accept or change things through one's power at the ballot box.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that Obama wants class warfare?? Please, he did not create the wide disparity between the classes in this country!
> ...


(I tried to eliminate some of the quoting)
I hope he succeeds. The disparity needs to be remedied.[/quote]

The disparity exists in all societies in one form or another. In communist, socialist, capitalist, underdeveloped, etc., all countries have their rich and poor. Not all have a middle class.[/quote]

Yes, and do we want to be a country with NO middle class?


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Dear Pardo, I would check your free trade boxes of merchandise for strange herbs, because I have no idea how you conceive or construct your comments such as:

WOW! You sure left your Christian spirit home today! The President is not a socialist, and he is not a lazy black man! He has taken far fewer vacations than Bush, according to public records. As for getting out of the way of business, does that mean at a cost to the environment and the people who would have poor working conditions?

Yes he is a socialist, and we can disagree with that catagorization, but where do you come up with that I am unChristian and called Obama a lazy black man. How dare you call me a racist. Bush went to Camp David and to his ranch, not to vacation spots like Martha's Vineyard, Hawaii, Spain...... Don't remember Laura Bush taking over villas in Spain and inviting friends along to party for weeks. Obama played 109 rounds of golf in 2009. I do not have time to play 8 hours every week like he does. Oh but I guess that is more important than getting the American people back to work. Or it is more important for him to rest before a big fund raiser than to try to save our ambassador and the other brave Americans that were murdered that day.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

What, may I ask, is your definition of a socialist?


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

There has been a graduated income tax for a long time, and the tax rate used to be higher for upper income people.


soloweygirl said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > The government has been able to decide how much you get to keep for a lot of years. They call it taxes. We cannot run the country without them - it isn't like passing the plate in church. To me, the issue is that the 1% who own big businesses often try to make more money by sending jobs overseas, or keeping wages in this country as low as possible. Right now, most peope are willing to accept darn near any wages so that they at least have a job...but if that is at a company which is cutting costs by doing it on the backs of its employees, that doesn't seem right to me. The CEO of Costco, a very successful company, pays a minimum of $17 an hour, plus health care to employees, AND makes less than $500,000 a year. I call that a person with a conscience.
> ...


[/quote]

The government is going way overboard on the ability to tax. Now they want to tax certain people only because they determined that they can afford to pay more taxes. The government is doing this in the name of fairness. How is this fair to those that are getting an increase in taxes, while others remain untouched? Yes taxes pay for government programs. Everyone can take advantage of government programs. Yet everyone does not pay taxes. Now the government wants to tax certain people more while others continue to pay nothing. It's absurd.[/quote]


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Our store is The Fair Trader, which you can google, since I don't think I should be putting "advertising" on this site. You can also find out more about Fair Trade at the website of The Fair Trade Federation. We carry everything from jewelry to baskets, art, paper, clothing, accessories and craft items like beads, paper, fabric and, yes, yarn!


bonbf3 said:


> Pardo,
> I enjoyed reading about your company. You must meet a lot of talented and interesting people. What kinds of things do they make?
> Bonnie


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Dear Pardo, I would check your free trade boxes of merchandise for strange herbs, because I have no idea how you conceive or construct your comments such as:
> 
> WOW! You sure left your Christian spirit home today! The President is not a socialist, and he is not a lazy black man! He has taken far fewer vacations than Bush, according to public records. As for getting out of the way of business, does that mean at a cost to the environment and the people who would have poor working conditions?
> 
> Yes he is a socialist, and we can disagree with that catagorization, but where do you come up with that I am unChristian and called Obama a lazy black man. How dare you call me a racist. Bush went to Camp David and to his ranch, not to vacation spots like Martha's Vineyard, Hawaii, Spain...... Don't remember Laura Bush taking over villas in Spain and inviting friends along to party for weeks. Obama played 109 rounds of golf in 2009. I do not have time to play 8 hours every week like he does. Oh but I guess that is more important than getting the American people back to work. Or it is more important for him to rest before a big fund raiser than to try to save our ambassador and the other brave Americans that were murdered that day.


 First, it is FAIR TRADE, not free trade.

Second, according to Mark Knoller of NBC News, who keeps track of these things, President Obama has take 84-90 days of vacation in his first term in office - about three weeks a year. I don't think that is unreasonable for the leader of the free world. George W. Bush took, according to the same source, 879 days, or a little more that FIFTEEN WEEKS every year! All Presidents use Camp David as a place to get away. President Obama doesn't have a ranch to go to - he avoids coming to his home in Chicago because it is disruptive to the neighbors when he is there. He and his family have spent very little time here. I should know, I live in the neighborhood! And he does have family in Hawaii. I don't know what the "weeks in Spain" thing is all about. Probably someone would have noticed if that had happened! His wife and daughters went there on a trip - which taxpayers did not pay for! Get your fact straight before you fling accusations a the President.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Michelle obama's trip to Spain in Huffington Post cost taxpayer's $467,000. Google it.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Pardo, I would check your free trade boxes of merchandise for strange herbs, because I have no idea how you conceive or construct your comments such as:
> ...


Someone has noticed the first family's lavish vacations at taxpayer expense, but the mainstream media doesn't report it. If you're not watching Fox, you won't hear about it. Try googling it - obama's vacations - see what you get. I suggest that without having tried it myself. I've read and watched the reports. They've been noticed all right.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Pardoquilts:
I think you were the one who mentioned the trip to Spain. Here's a quote:

"First lady Michelle Obama's trip to Spain in August 2010 cost the U.S. Air Force and the Secret Service at least $467,585, Judicial Watch reported Thursday based on documents provided by the government under the Freedom of Information Act."


Reported by Judicial Watch and Huffington Post.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

alcameron said:


> My moral compass tells me that it IS fair for people who have more to pay more. People who can barely survive shouldn't even have to pay. It's just what I believe. We've been through this before. I was a salaried employee, and my husband owned a business. We both worked very hard, paid our taxes, and didn't complain about having to pay taxes. It's our responsibility as citizens of the US. Did I love it that my tax dollars went to pay for two wars that I disagreed with? No, but, we still paid our taxes. We don't always agree with everything our government does, but what goes around comes around. There are certain things one has to accept or change things through one's power at the ballot box.


One does not have to accept one segment of the population being singled out over others. That is discrimination, no matter how much sugar you use to coat it. All of a sudden it is acceptable to discriminate against the wealthy.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > My moral compass tells me that it IS fair for people who have more to pay more. People who can barely survive shouldn't even have to pay. It's just what I believe. We've been through this before. I was a salaried employee, and my husband owned a business. We both worked very hard, paid our taxes, and didn't complain about having to pay taxes. It's our responsibility as citizens of the US. Did I love it that my tax dollars went to pay for two wars that I disagreed with? No, but, we still paid our taxes. We don't always agree with everything our government does, but what goes around comes around. There are certain things one has to accept or change things through one's power at the ballot box.
> ...


By virtue of being a higher-level earner, coupled with a graduated tax system, the top earners automatically pay more in taxes. Further discrimination equates to robbing them. When is it ever enough? To say the govt. 'needs ' it doesn't suffice. The govt. needs to learn how to make a budget, stick to it and not give away the store. No wonder top earners look for loopholes and ways to protect income. I hope more will do it so a budget will be seen as a necessity.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > My moral compass tells me that it IS fair for people who have more to pay more. People who can barely survive shouldn't even have to pay. It's just what I believe. We've been through this before. I was a salaried employee, and my husband owned a business. We both worked very hard, paid our taxes, and didn't complain about having to pay taxes. It's our responsibility as citizens of the US. Did I love it that my tax dollars went to pay for two wars that I disagreed with? No, but, we still paid our taxes. We don't always agree with everything our government does, but what goes around comes around. There are certain things one has to accept or change things through one's power at the ballot box.
> ...


I disagree. The wealthy are not being singled out. Everyone except the very poor pays taxes, and we do not all pay the same, do we? I'm not sugar-coating anything. You just have a totally different view of paying taxes. I think it's a responsibility, and you think it's robbery.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


No, we do not all pay the same.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Yes, I was pointing out that we do not and should not pay the same. Why should a minimum wage earner pay anything at all?


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Yes, I was pointing out that we do not and should not pay the same. Why should a minimum wage earner pay anything at all?


I understand what you are saying, but my experience has taught me that when people get something for "nothing" it is rarely appreciated or valued and becomes an expectation. If there were a way to have EVERYONE contribute a fair amount even if it seemed insignificant to most, the contributor might feel more invested in the process...and I'm not saying that most are un-invested, just that I know there is a difference, having worked with the minimum wage earners.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done .

also: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism

My meaning on how it applies to Obama is that I believe that we are in a transition from capitalism which founded this country to a communistic state. There is an unequal redistribution of goods and services without permission by the taken. We are under constant attack from Federal Regulation that purposefully by-passes Congressional consent. We are constantly told who makes to much, gives too little, and by whose yardstick?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

alcameron said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


I'm not talking about the taxes that everyone pays, but the taxes that this government wants to charge just the top 1% while all others get a pass.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Maybe he could have bought a ranch if he ever had a real job, and earned his money. Bush worked hard and owned a baseball team, put his money and time on the line to make money. Clinton just mooched off the rich on Martha's Vineyard. Obama could sell his home, and buy a more secure one if he believed having a home was important. (Oh wait, who wants to live in Chicago with the high murder rate and even higher tax rate? He would never be able to sell it.)

Michelle and her crew went to Spain and yes, the tax payers paid a lot for it because of Air Force One and extra security needed to be in a foreign country. Oh that's right too, God forbid if she would vacation in the US, how demeaning.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/michelle-obama-spain-vacation-judicial-watch_n_1457302.html


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > soloweygirl said:
> ...


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Just paid $3.89 for a gallon of regular gas....


How is that hope and change working out for you?

How will the children get to school if their parents can't afford gas? How will the children get milk if there is no money left over from filling up the tank? Oh no, another crisis not to waste..........................................yippie


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Do you realize all the tax breaks the 1% gets that the middleclass and the poor do not?


Do you realize how many people do not pay taxes? 

My brother is a vet, and could get no one to work at his office because people made more on unemployment. 

More people on Welfare and food stamps ever.


Take take take is all Obama wants to do and not do one meaningful budget cut. All the ones he said he did, was a shell game, one column to another column or one year delay so to not show up on the books. Show me a true budget cut, just one because I can't find one that means diddle.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

momeee said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I was pointing out that we do not and should not pay the same. Why should a minimum wage earner pay anything at all?
> ...


I think you are right that everyone should pay something, even if it's a very small amount. I just wouldn't be upset if they paid nothing. It's a continuous struggle for some people to just be able to pay for shelter, food, and necessities.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

And now he wants more pre-school access. We already have Head Start, which has been proven to be a failure. Now we are supposed to give more money to the same type of programs? Change the names all you want. However, the results will be the same. How much are we to provide them before they ACTUALLY take advantage of the programs and improve their position.

However, as my DH always told our children, we will always need ditch diggers. So, do you want your children to be successful in life or do you not care and let them be ditch diggers? You decide. Any amount of money that you may force me to throw at this program or that means nothing if the parent doesn't care.



off2knit said:


> Just paid $3.89 for a gallon of regular gas....
> 
> How is that hope and change working out for you?
> 
> How will the children get to school if their parents can't afford gas? How will the children get milk if there is no money left over from filling up the tank? Oh no, another crisis not to waste..........................................yippie


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> And now he wants more pre-school access. We already have Head Start, which has been proven to be a failure. Now we are supposed to give more money to the same type of programs? Change the names all you want. However, the results will be the same. How much are we to provide them before they ACTUALLY take advantage of the programs and improve their position.
> 
> However, as my DH always told our children, we will always need ditch diggers. So, do you want your children to be successful in life or do you not care and let them be ditch diggers? You decide. Any amount of money that you may force me to throw at this program or that means nothing if the parent doesn't
> 
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Wait - I thought Hawaii WAS in the U.S. No President, nor his family, can be expected to go anywhere without security. In fact, Congress - all of it - just extended the protection for former Presidents to their lifetime. With all the crazies out there, I'm okay with that. With all the people that particularly want to take a shot at the current President, I'm doubly okay with that! The Bush Presidents spent time at the family compound in Kennibunkport, Maine....they didn't need to go to Martha's Vineyard - they had their own piece of property in a very expensive part of the world. I've lived in Chicago for most of my life. It is a wonderful city, Hyde Park is a great neighborhood - diverse economically and culturally. I'm not sure what you are trying to say when you suggest that the President doesn't believe having a home is important. Probably living on a ranch is not what the President and his family want to do. Particularly if it is in Texas! President Obama did earn money by practicing law, teaching at the University of Chicago, and writing books. His home is in a very nice area of Hyde Park, but the Obamas try to be respectful of their neighbors. The previous president came from a monied family. President Obama did not. He went to college and law school on scholarship. George W. wouldn't have qualified!I don't think the President could have afforded a baseball team, unless it was Little League. An expensive hobby, for sure.


off2knit said:


> Maybe he could have bought a ranch if he ever had a real job, and earned his money. Bush worked hard and owned a baseball team, put his money and time on the line to make money. Clinton just mooched off the rich on Martha's Vineyard. Obama could sell his home, and buy a more secure one if he believed having a home was important. (Oh wait, who wants to live in Chicago with the high murder rate and even higher tax rate? He would never be able to sell it.)
> 
> Michelle and her crew went to Spain and yes, the tax payers paid a lot for it because of Air Force One and extra security needed to be in a foreign country. Oh that's right too, God forbid if she would vacation in the US, how demeaning.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/michelle-obama-spain-vacation-judicial-watch_n_1457302.html


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Just an aside: I love Chicago and have been there many times.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

How about some defense department cuts? Oh, wait. With 36,000 troops returning from Afghanistan, that budget, which is NOT a line item in the budget, will decrease. I doubt you would give credit for that kind of cut. The cost for the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has already dropped for 2012 from 158 billion to 115 billion because troops are largely out of there.

Perhaps your brother culdn't get anyone to work for him because his pay rate was pathetic.



off2knit said:


> Do you realize all the tax breaks the 1% gets that the middleclass and the poor do not?
> 
> Do you realize how many people do not pay taxes?
> 
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Y'all come! I'll give you the tour!


alcameron said:


> Just an aside: I love Chicago and have been there many times.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

The poor and working poor still pay sales tax!


alcameron said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


----------



## sjrNC (Jul 30, 2012)

Facebook paid nothing in taxes and I think the article says they will be getting a refund. It was also on the Fox website

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/facebook-taxes_n_2694368.html
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/02/16/facebook-paid-no-taxes-despite-record-profits/


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Do you realize all the tax breaks the 1% gets that the middleclass and the poor do not?
> 
> Do you realize how many people do not pay taxes?
> 
> ...


So correct, but I fear you are preaching to the choir. It has been reported that every person on Welfare costs the govt. (taxpayers) $60,000. I think that is more than what is considered a living or minimum wage. When all the benefits are imcluded, that is where it adds up to. 
Regarding o and the budget, didn't the Dems. control both house and senate in his first 2 years of office, yet none of his promises were enacted then when he should have had backing? And today I read this:

A large number of Americans who have been refused health insurance because of preexisting medical conditions received bad news Friday from the Obama administration. Tens of thousands will be blocked from a program designed to help them because money is running out, the Washington Post reports.

Obama administration officials said new applicants will be shut out of the state-based high-risk pools set up under the 2010 health-care law as soon this weekend and no later than March 2, depending on the state.

This will not affect the coverage afforded to approximately 100,000 people who are now enrolled in the high-risk pools.

Were being very careful stewards of the money that has been appropriated to us and we wanted to balance our desire to maximize the number of people who can gain from this program while making sure people who are in the program have coverage, said Gary Cohen, director of the Department of Health and Human Services Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.
...Analysts have consistently doubted whether the $5 billion allocated by Congress for the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan  as the program is called  would be sufficient.
...While only about 135,000 people have gotten coverage, their insurance is proving to be more costly than predicted.

...Because of their lack of insurance, many people go untreated, which worsens their medical problems. When they finally do get coverage through a high-risk pool, the care they require costs more than initially expected.
What weve learned through the course of this program is that this is really not a sensible way for the health-care system to be run, Cohen told The Post.Of the original $5 billion provided by Congress, less than half remains available for the remainder of 2013  enough only to provide coverage for those already in the pools, according to administration estimates.

When asked why the Obama administration has not requested additional funds from Congress to keep the program active, Cohen said: My responsibility is to work with the appropriation we have.

What will happen when the bills for health insurance start to arrive at the "middle class" residences? If the anticipated raise in cost is realized, more people will be without adequate insurance, and it will not be the fault of their employers or the insurance companies.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Ok, let me give you a personal 'obama' tour. My 'step' daughter murdered my BIL. She shot him in the head twice. She cut his head off his head because he had the audacity to still be breathing after that. Don't tell me that I don't have a reason to protect myself!


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> Ok, let me give you a personal 'obama' tour. My 'step' daughter murdered my BIL. She shot him in the head twice. She cut his head off his head because he had the audacity to still be breathing after that. Don't tell me that I don't have a reason to protect myself!


I'm sorry for your tragedy, but I'm a bit confused about what Obama has to do with this. What am I missing? I guess I'll look for a post that references this ??


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

alcameron said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, let me give you a personal 'obama' tour. My 'step' daughter murdered my BIL. She shot him in the head twice. She cut his head off his head because he had the audacity to still be breathing after that. Don't tell me that I don't have a reason to protect myself!
> ...


It all has to do with the entitlements. They are all Chicago gang thugs that get welfare benefits in Minnesota.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Just paid $3.89 for a gallon of regular gas....
> 
> How is that hope and change working out for you?
> 
> How will the children get to school if their parents can't afford gas? How will the children get milk if there is no money left over from filling up the tank? Oh no, another crisis not to waste..........................................yippie


What o you want President Obama to do? He has very little effect on the price of gasoline, unless he opens up our oil reserves. I love he hope and change he is offering oour country. Why didn't more Reps vote for your candidates? You liked what they offered, why din't they win?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > soloweygirl said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Do you realize all the tax breaks the 1% gets that the middleclass and the poor do not?
> 
> Do you realize how many people do not pay taxes?
> 
> ...


I sincerely thik that they don't make more on unemployment, perhaps he doesn't want to pay them a ecent wage.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > My moral compass tells me that it IS fair for people who have more to pay more. People who can barely survive shouldn't even have to pay. It's just what I believe. We've been through this before. I was a salaried employee, and my husband owned a business. We both worked very hard, paid our taxes, and didn't complain about having to pay taxes. It's our responsibility as citizens of the US. Did I love it that my tax dollars went to pay for two wars that I disagreed with? No, but, we still paid our taxes. We don't always agree with everything our government does, but what goes around comes around. There are certain things one has to accept or change things through one's power at the ballot box.
> ...


soloweygirl:
I think you're right. Discrimination is discrimination - whether it's against the wealthy, the uneducated, the successful, the short (that's me!), the obese, the not-beautiful, the ignorant, the tall-and-thin, the minority race, the majority race, and on and on.

The definition has changed over the years.
Old - In my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, published in 1977:

the FIRST definition is - the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

the THIRD definition is - the act, practice, or instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually; prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment.

New - On my computer dictionary, published when? now?:

the FIRST definition is - the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex

the SECOND definition is - recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > thumper5316 said:
> ...


But what does President Obama have to do with this? Again, I'm sorry for that awful tragedy.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

alcameron said:


> Just an aside: I love Chicago and have been there many times.


Used to until it became a shooting gallery. Sister runs a company there, and is making provisions to get out of there. Can't stand the "Chicago style politics" and the taxes are outrageous. Another example of Democrats at work

And Rocky, to accuse Republicans of wanting to make people poorer, is a flat out malicious lie


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> off2knit wrote:
> "Do you realize all the tax breaks the 1% gets that the middleclass and the poor do not?
> Do you realize how many people do not pay taxes?"
> 
> ...


You don't mean that people receiving Social Security don't pay taxes, do you?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Mr. Presidents words change evertime he speaks. He does not tell the truth, he is always defaming anyone who does not agree with him.
Budget, law that ever year a budget must be passed. Our gifted leader has not done that in four years, and again it seem he is going to do it again. He now is saying if he does not get what he wants he will use his little pen to get what he wants. 
The last session he got all his wants, and now he is making it seem as he did not get anything. Oh woe is me.
Dear ladies, it is not the congress that is holding up the budget.
It is infact a man called HARRY REID, who has not put one forth for four years in the senate along with your President. 
Pardo, you so sound like someone who use to be on here. Different story same dance. 

Stock market you have to be kidding on the raise, what country are you talking about? I have watch it go down down down, and came up slow slow slow only to go down again.
You do know what a penison fund is do you not??
Do you also know that many states have market funds and they are going down? So much for the stock market going up. I have seen mine go down. 
We have a president that wants to be over the top with all his programs, and has added more to the budget than any other president,there does need to change his way of thinking. we are not the money pot at the end of the rainbow, we as the taxs payers are become broke and don't tell me oh I don't mind paying more tax if it helps the poor ect. We are paying taxes with everything we buy, with everything we do. I really don't think some of you have a clue as to what is going on.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Mr. Presidents words change evertime he speaks. He does not tell the truth, he is always defaming anyone who does not agree with him.
> Budget, law that ever year a budget must be passed. Our gifted leader has not done that in four years, and again it seem he is going to do it again. He now is saying if he does not get what he wants he will use his little pen to get what he wants.
> The last session he got all his wants, and now he is making it seem as he did not get anything. Oh woe is me.
> Dear ladies, it is not the congress that is holding up the budget.
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Dear YarnLady, 
We already know how you feel about our President, so you needn't write it over and over. Blaming him for everything is getting old. Acting as though the Democrats are responsible for every problem in the country is also old. The President has been re-elected, Romney has disappeared, and life goes on, but you're entitled to your opinion.
It seems as if more than one person posts in your name. The writing styles are different as are the grammar and usage. Are there two YarnLadies?


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Just saw this on yahoo. 

Ummm.". . . behind the gates of the Floridian Yacht and Golf Club, an exclusive resort. . ." Sounds like one of those rich #$%$ 1%'ers that we're all supposed to hate & loathe.

Obama treats himself to boys' weekend in Florida
Associated Press/Evan Vucci - President Barack Obama greets supporters after arriving at West Palm Beach International Airport on Friday, Feb. 15, 2013, in West Palm Beach, Fla. President Obama is spending more 
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. (AP)  President Barack Obama was facing the prospect of rattling around the White House without his family during a long weekend, so he arranged a golf outing with some buddies.
In Florida.
He high-tailed it south after a speech Friday in Chicago on building a stronger middle class and he won't return to Washington until Monday, the Presidents Day federal holiday.
Obama flew into the airport in West Palm Beach and was driven for nearly an hour to coastal Palm City and behind the gates of the Floridian Yacht and Golf Club, the resort that will be his home away from home for the weekend.
It's a weekend with the boys, presidential style.
Eyebrows might have been raised at the thought of the president, any president, skipping out of Washington, without his family, for some "me time" hundreds of miles away from the Oval Office. First lady Michelle Obama and daughters Malia and Sasha are on an annual midwinter ski vacation out West.
As it turns out, a president going on vacation alone isn't all that uncommon.
And, Obama has gone off on his own in the past, too.
During the weekend, the avid first golfer was expected to take full advantage of the club's private, 18-hole course, which opened in 1996 and is owned by Jim Crane, a Houston businessman who also owns Major League Baseball's Astros, according to golfnow.com.
"A quiet weekend of golf," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.
The president was not expected to leave the private club, which fronts the St. Lucie River, until he heads back to Washington.
Members of the club and their guests have access to one of eight cottages, a 68-slip deep water marina, the club's 61-foot Viking yacht, a 24-foot Hurricane Deck Boat and the club's private helicopter service with two on-site helipads.
Wow, he's been back president of his 2nd term for about 3 weeks and this is his 2nd vacation. I suppose years and years of campaigning is a tough job. 
"Treats himself" ???? Did he pay out of his pocket, or the taxpayers?
Airforce One costs Americans $181,000 an hour. This is the man who promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.
". . . behind the gates of the Floridian Yacht and Golf Club, an exclusive resort. . ." Sounds like one of those rich #$%$ 1%'ers that we're all supposed to hate & loathe.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Gee, he can't even take a vacation the right way, I guess. Criticize, blame, crucify him. There's nothing that he can do correctly. We get how you feel. When it's time to vote, exercise your right the way the Americans who voted him in for a second term did. We're far from disliking "his policies." It shows that the hatred is for the man, not the policies.


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Yarnlady..... Yes it needs to be said over and over again until it is understood and processed at the cortical level. Bravo to you.


momeee said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Presidents words change evertime he speaks. He does not tell the truth, he is always defaming anyone who does not agree with him.
> ...


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

alcameron said:


> Dear YarnLady,
> We already know how you feel about our President, so you needn't write it over and over. Blaming him for everything is getting old. Acting as though the Democrats are responsible for every problem in the country is also old. The President has been re-elected, Romney has disappeared, and life goes on, but you're entitled to your opinion.
> It seems as if more than one person posts in your name. The writing styles are different as are the grammar and usage. Are there two YarnLadies?


Your accusation is offensive. Why instigate a problem when there is none?

Bless your heart


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Just an aside: I love Chicago and have been there many times.
> ...


What have the reps one for the middleclass? They vote against everything and anything Obama has put forth, even if at one time they were in favor of it, Why not pass a bill to fix our infrastructure? Putting people to work helps not only the peoople but the economy, where is the reps moral compass? In the pocket of the 1%.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Joey, you go girl


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Dear YarnLady,
> We already know how you feel about our President, so you needn't write it over and over. Blaming him for everything is getting old. Acting as though the Democrats are responsible for every problem in the country is also old. The President has been re-elected, Romney has disappeared, and life goes on, but you're entitled to your opinion.
> It seems as if more than one person posts in your name. The writing styles are different as are the grammar and usage. Are there two YarnLadies?


Ah good one yes there are two of me and we both feel the same about what is happening in our goverment. Nice try though with the grammar and usage. Plus to know I am intitled to my opinion, I am so grateful for that and to hear it from you makes it all the more worthy.
He won the election, where are the answers to what I have posted??? about what has been done???
Do you ever watch C span?? you might want to. 
Benhazi, Hilly Clinton in front of committee, said after being ask why was nothing done to help these men,when you and the President where watching it live?? Why did she and the President continue to say it was a video, when those around them said it was a terrorist attack. 
Her answer: lets get beyond this????? Why could she not answer??? 
Why has the president not step in to stop Stealth figther Jets and tanks being sent to Egypt. Mohanmed Morsi, a known member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and meeting up with Iran's
President Mahmoud AhmadineJad, whose country is producing the atomic bomb. 
when Egypt people are protesting in the streets against this man and his leadership?
Last meeting to stave off over the cliff, why was it Biden who had to meet with the Congress to come to some agreement before over the cliff? Where was our President who is suppose to lead? not vice President???
Why is Timonthy Geither who is our Treasury Secretary allow to hold this position caught not paying his taxes??? He is incharge of the Treasury???
why when Marco Rubio gave republican side belittled by Press ect for drinking a glass of water, yet nothing said about his talking points? Could it happen to be that they had no rebuttal as to his telling the truth????

Last but not the least of what I want you to answer too.
Why would a man who graduated graduated from Harvard , no want the rest of his history hidden, along with his wifes?? 
I would think he would be proud to let the U.S. A know?? other President seem to have allowed it??
These are just some of the question I would like answers too.

Oh and before I forget I do know how you feel too, and do not feel the need to criticize you for your stance? Yes he was elected, and I did not vote for him, so that would seem to me that I would be allowed to voice my opinion over and over again as you have seem to have done??
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

As to lady I said sounds like another person who has been on this site, I do have the right to say what I feel, it was not nice to do, and should not of said what I said. But as I did not insult you, why do you feel the need to insult me?????


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Taking money from me in the form of taxes to give to someone else who has done absolutely nothing to deserve that money is criminal. If I see someone in need I will give to that person. But I have the right to judge the worthiness of that person. And, yes, I said that 'I' have that right to judge.

Any benevolence program should be at the community level. Not at the national level.


----------



## lukka (Dec 16, 2012)

Quote> What have the reps one for the middleclass? They vote against everything and anything Obama has put forth, even if at one time they were in favor of it, Why not pass a bill to fix our infrastructure? Putting people to work helps not only the peoople but the economy, where is the reps moral compass? In the pocket of the 1%.[/quote]

What have the Progressive Dems. done?? You can goggle it. It is the video where Obama and GE's Jeffery Immelt are laughing, " well I guess shovel ready wasn't as shovel ready as we thought." That was them laughing at Tax payers and the unemployed in this country. GE's Immelt would equal the 1% , What were you saying about Moral Compass?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


Because we will have to borrow the money from China, this nation is adding to the deficit then has money to back it?? 
How do you think we can pay for all of this?? Less people working, taxes raising, and we do not even have the funds to cover what has been proposed by our President? Where is the money to come from?? The money tree, the money at the end of the rainbow??? Where??? 
How can you put people to work when there are no jobs to be had? the goverment is going to do this?? The goverment can't even solve their own problems, except to raise taxes.All our President wants is to raise more taxes, what has he or the left done for us, I would ask you?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Mr. Presidents words change evertime he speaks. He does not tell the truth, he is always defaming anyone who does not agree with him.
> Budget, law that ever year a budget must be passed. Our gifted leader has not done that in four years, and again it seem he is going to do it again. He now is saying if he does not get what he wants he will use his little pen to get what he wants.
> The last session he got all his wants, and now he is making it seem as he did not get anything. Oh woe is me.
> Dear ladies, it is not the congress that is holding up the budget.
> ...


Right.


----------



## lukka (Dec 16, 2012)

alcameron said:


> Yes, I was pointing out that we do not and should not pay the same. Why should a minimum wage earner pay anything at all?


Because---- "We Should All Have Skin In The Game" ----Those are Obama's words.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Obama should not be president.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Right!


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Obama should not be president.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Glad you agree.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


And should be taxed and not hidden way in foreign countries.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Tell me what the reps are proposing for the middle class?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


This is a very large country and sometimes needs a national response,


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Yarnlady
I was not trying to insult you at all. I just wondered why some of your posts sound different than others. Maybe late at night we get tired.
Yes everyone can express his/her opinion and we can really do it when we go to the polls. 
There is so much hatred coming from the repubs and the far right---and I'm not singling you out YarnLady. There's no way to respond to hatred like this because every criticism of him begins with hatred and already clouds one's objectivity. Do I think President Obama is perfect? No. Did I think Bush was perfect? No. I survived 8 years of Bush and his wars. Now I guess you'll have to survive the same. Feel free to vent.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

off2knit said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Dear YarnLady,
> ...


Thank you for the blessing.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

lukka said:


> Quote> What have the reps one for the middleclass? They vote against everything and anything Obama has put forth, even if at one time they were in favor of it, Why not pass a bill to fix our infrastructure? Putting people to work helps not only the peoople but the economy, where is the reps moral compass? In the pocket of the 1%.


What have the Progressive Dems. done?? You can goggle it. It is the video where Obama and GE's Jeffery Immelt are laughing, " well I guess shovel ready wasn't as shovel ready as we thought." That was them laughing at Tax payers and the unemployed in this country. GE's Immelt would equal the 1% , What were you saying about Moral Compass?[/quote]

I think the reps do not have a moral ccompass. why not rebuild our infrastructure? Why will they not compromise? Why do they always say NO? Why did they plan for Obama to be a one term president? If you ask me this country is not Progressive enough.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Just like Jesus? Taking care of the poor?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Just how much do we owe China?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Too much.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Gee, he can't even take a vacation the right way, I guess. Criticize, blame, crucify him. There's nothing that he can do correctly. We get how you feel. When it's time to vote, exercise your right the way the Americans who voted him in for a second term did. We're far from disliking "his policies." It shows that the hatred is for the man, not the policies.


I am an independent voter, I do not vote for party. I vote for the person who will represent me. I am not a ractst or hate the man. I hate his policies, I want a man who does not feel the need to undermine what this nation is about. His additude is divide and control and have what he wants with no thought to the nation as a whole.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

I feel exactly the same. I don't hate the man. I hate what he is doing to our country.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


The Federal Gov't is the only party that can acctually grow the economy, That is what FDR did during the Great Decession. If public companies are not hiring the Fed gov't has to. Despite all the hystrionics, we are not Broke. I can't believe how the reps aare so outraged at Obama, when he was the one who inherited the financcial mess that the reps left in 2008, What do you think the effects of austerity would bring to this country? Do you really want to see higher unemplyement? Someone on this forumsaid that there are countries where their poor are poorer than ours, is that what you want for us? A third world country, Hard to beleve that people have such hard hearts and don't have the least bit of empathy for those in neeed in this country.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Presidents words change evertime he speaks. He does not tell the truth, he is always defaming anyone who does not agree with him.
> ...


Seems to me the stock market is a high, Peoplehave made back a lot of their money,


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Obama should not be president.


Tell us something you have not said before.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > Obama should not be president.
> ...


Sore losers,,,,,,,,,you should have voted more for your guys,


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

alcameron said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


Alcameron..WWJD.......These so called Christians are the least Christian of all. What's mine is MINE the hell with others, I am not Christian, but if Jesus came back and saw what is going he he would just ccry and throw these people out of cchurch.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Too much.


Look it up. Is it 30% 50% more or less?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Dear YarnLady,
> ...


Must correct spelling as other theyarn lady may be upset.
Hillary
Egypt people
in charge
should be only on graduate posted two.
left out t on not
should have place shown, then want hidden??
Hope that meets your approval.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


If he came back today, they would crucify him---especially if his skin was dark, he had long hair, and was unemployed!


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Gee, he can't even take a vacation the right way, I guess. Criticize, blame, crucify him. There's nothing that he can do correctly. We get how you feel. When it's time to vote, exercise your right the way the Americans who voted him in for a second term did. We're far from disliking "his policies." It shows that the hatred is for the man, not the policies.
> ...


Talk about divide an conquer/or lose, that is the rep way. War on women, war on immigration, war on gays,,,,,,talk about division.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I feel exactly the same. I don't hate the man. I hate what he is doing to our country.


Talk about hat much LikeLucy? Enough of the hate talk. Try loving thine enemy.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


Where, how, when,? Do you watch the tv channel that carrys only stock and dow jones??? I do.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Yarnlady, I already responded to the insult. I'll do it again. I'm sorry if you took it as an insult. I was not intending that, I was wondering.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > bonbf3 said:
> ...


I made back all my money and more........perhaps you need a new money management company


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


Again no backing but hear same, pass around during elections to win votes. You may want to check really Policy of Republican party. Not spead rumors of what you heard was said policy.


----------



## lukka (Dec 16, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> lukka said:
> 
> 
> > Quote> What have the reps one for the middleclass? They vote against everything and anything Obama has put forth, even if at one time they were in favor of it, Why not pass a bill to fix our infrastructure? Putting people to work helps not only the peoople but the economy, where is the reps moral compass? In the pocket of the 1%.
> ...


I think the reps do not have a moral ccompass. why not rebuild our infrastructure? Why will they not compromise? Why do they always say NO? Why did they plan for Obama to be a one term president? If you ask me this country is not Progressive enough.[/quote]

I don't recall what Obama wanted that he didn't get. He seems happy and his party of voters seems happy or they would not have voted him in for another term. We are 17 trillion in debt and this country is broke, painfully and seriously broke. The stimulus was also to be used for those shovel ready jobs and infrastructure. Both parties agreed/compromised, so to say Reps. always say No is not true.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

He inherited a mess and made it worse. It is time to stop blaming the past for the failures of the present president.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> He inherited a mess and made it worse. It is time to stop blaming the past for the failures of the present president.


How do you turn around a massive debt so fast? Bush tax cuts plus 2 wars equal massive debt. I don't think people understand the size of the mess this country was in when he took office. When he tries to do anything repubs dig in their heels because they absolutely hate Obama and do not want him to succeed at anything. How do you solve that problem?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Obama has spent 40% more than Bush. He has a Socialistic philosophy. I am an American. I want to live in America - not Russia.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > I feel exactly the same. I don't hate the man. I hate what he is doing to our country.
> ...


I'd rather drive them out with a whip like Jesus did.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


The Policy of the Rep party is anti anything that the ems want. Their policy for women is repressive.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> He inherited a mess and made it worse. It is time to stop blaming the past for the failures of the present president.


It's time to stop blaming Obama for everything and move Forward. Talk about blame, youv'e got it down pat.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


Really the goverment is the only one who can get the conutry to work??? Then why was that not done four years ago ,when mess was inherited. Still blaming Bush? why after all he is on his second term and yet spending like no tomorrow, and expects to collect money from whom to pay for it??
Please check the amount of money we are borrowing from China, and what the goverment has taken in, and how much is going out? I can't believe you know so little about this? dollar value 38 cents on the dollar had it at only 8 cents, was wrong. Do you know what that means? The dollar is only worth .38 cents, so this means that ever dollar you may spend is only worth .38 cents, which in turn raise the price of goods, and the goverment is only getting 38 cents return, and still spending a dollar. They are also still printing money with no backing, Please don't say it is the sky falling not right don't know what they are talking about unless you have study this subject for yourself.
How do you propose to give jobs to people we do not live in the 40's, we live in the 2000 with a world economy, which we are also supporting as other countrys also are broke or heading that way. Just the facts.
As to being a Christian many Left people are also Christians what makes you think that we do any less for the poor than you do?? Being a christian does not make me responsable to pay all my earnings to someone who could work and does not. Give a man a fish and what does he learn, teach a man to fish and he will. Thats what should be done. Not hand it all over to the person who does not deserve it. I have and will always help the poor, the sick, and the person who deserve it. But I will not waste my money on one who does not seem to think he does not have to work and collect all he wants by sitting on his behind. You make a blank statement about me and the rest of the people who are christian as if we are so mean as to not care. I am a Christian I am my brothers keeper. But I am not going to have my money spent on someone who lives off of me. Would you????


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


You are correct in that the dems want. They and their supporters are the party of 'I want, I want, I want'. Much like a six year old in a toy store. The conservatives are the ones who have to act like the adults and have the backbone to say "no".


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Gee, he can't even take a vacation the right way, I guess. Criticize, blame, crucify him. There's nothing that he can do correctly. We get how you feel. When it's time to vote, exercise your right the way the Americans who voted him in for a second term did. We're far from disliking "his policies." It shows that the hatred is for the man, not the policies.
> ...


Yarnlady, you can have your opinion and express your views as anyone can, but sometimes other people just go "off" when our views are different than theirs.

YarnL, you are a very caring person and it is my pleasure to know you and others on KP, but you will always find people who "try" to change our thinking to their way of thinking and if it does not work--they become hateful

Lots of Christian Love to you so stand strong with your political thoughts. Hugs, Janeway who is also capable of thinking!


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Obama has spent 40% more than Bush. He has a Socialistic philosophy. I am an American. I want to live in America - not Russia.


Depen on what ebissye you are looking at.......Ido not agree with your figure


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

t this website
http://ezkool.com/2011/07/two-potus-spending-2/


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Alcameron, You are also a wonderful person, but sometimes you "bite" hard when others have a different opinion.

You are a dear friend to me so please show that same friendship to others as you are "one" sweet lady!

Hugs, Janeway


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Lukelucy said:
> ...


Thunper. so much hate ........why?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


Ah so glad to hear you are in the 1% that did . I have a very good manager thank you and so do many others. But I do think no I believe that you do not know a thing about the stock markets ups and downs more downs then ups, so I wonder how you did make a profit???


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


When did it become hatered to state what was said, by Jesus?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


Explain to me why you thnk taxing the 1% is so awful. They have so much money what woul a tax d o to them, make the destitute? A CEO making a bonus of 10 million whoul have to papy taxes on that an maybe only make 6 million.........hw awful for that millionaire. What is wrong wih the wealthy paying a little more? Shoul I feel sorry for them? I reallu don't. But hy o you deffind them so vehemently?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

I don't see any hate talk!


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


Adults are you kidding me or yourself? Do dems want for themselves or to help others?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Dems want for themselves


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Hello, Janeway here, would enjoy everyone (wish we lived close) at my church tonight for dinner for we oldies. Just inside the church with a prayer before eating.

We are having baked potatoes, with all trimmings, my homemade chili, my homemade pie crust from scratch, peach/blueberry pie and lots of lovely conversations.

There won't be any "preaching" for any non-christians but just good food with friends.

Anyone hungry? Dinner is at 6 PM. You'll come hear?


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


I find it hard to believe any freedom loving American would believe what you wrote! Many economists believe FDRs policies prolonged the depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt). Obama has done nothing more than spend more money and leave us with an even deeper debt. Yes, I would rather see higher unemployment than see the government grow. Only higher taxes will satisfy that growth and we pay too much as it is. I have the utmost empathy for those truly in need. However, the line between need and want has been blurred and I resent paying for wants.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


Your envy of what they have is showing. I find it awful because the money is theirs. Not yours, not mine, and not the government's.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> The poor and working poor still pay sales tax!
> 
> 
> alcameron said:
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Too much.


an amount we'll never be able to repay...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Yarnlady
> I was not trying to insult you at all. I just wondered why some of your posts sound different than others. Maybe late at night we get tired.
> Yes everyone can express his/her opinion and we can really do it when we go to the polls.
> There is so much hatred coming from the repubs and the far right---and I'm not singling you out YarnLady. There's no way to respond to hatred like this because every criticism of him begins with hatred and already clouds one's objectivity. Do I think President Obama is perfect? No. Did I think Bush was perfect? No. I survived 8 years of Bush and his wars. Now I guess you'll have to survive the same. Feel free to vent.


Andrea,
I've noticed two things about all the political postings:
1. The liberals have as strong negative feelings about Republican politicians as conservatives have about Democratic politicians. 
2. Both sides are shocked, angry, and hurt by what the other side says.

I'll admit that it was an eye-opener to me that liberals had such a negative opinion of Romney and of Republicans.

I wish we could all be more objective about this. I've been trying, and in doing so have seen that ALL media outlets, including my favorite Fox, are guilty of trying to stir people up, of exaggerating the negative. It doesn't make me like Obama any better, but it makes me question even my own sources of information. Truly, I no longer believe anything on tv or in the paper unless it's has many sources and is in the news for a while.

Also, I try to remember that we all have very strong opinions. I try not to change anyone's mind - that never happens. But I wish people would stop getting angry with each other and disliking each other because of opinions on issues.

Just my two cents' worth.
Bonnie


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Gee, he can't even take a vacation the right way, I guess. Criticize, blame, crucify him. There's nothing that he can do correctly. We get how you feel. When it's time to vote, exercise your right the way the Americans who voted him in for a second term did. We're far from disliking "his policies." It shows that the hatred is for the man, not the policies.
> ...


Yarnlady, i could not have said it better. I've also been accused of 'hating' the man, which i do not. (Some interpret our criticism as hate; it's free speech.) I do not respect him or like his policies. I am disgusted with his attitude to most Americans. I am embarrassed by many of his actions, and feel he is not acting in the good of the country regarding weakening the military along with his attempt at economic policies. His promises, untruths are hurting the country. Bengazhi needs to addressed as to his negligence... gotta run, but wanted to put my 2 cents in...as that's about all I have after his hand has been in my pocket again.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


Depends on who you bleieve:http://www.salon.com/2009/01/02/sirota_fdr_depression/


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


I have no reason to envy....I pay lots of taxes. I do believe in the common good


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > The Federal Gov't is the only party that can acctually grow the economy, That is what FDR did during the Great Decession. If public companies are not hiring the Fed gov't has to. Despite all the hystrionics, we are not Broke. I can't believe how the reps aare so outraged at Obama, when he was the one who inherited the financcial mess that the reps left in 2008, What do you think the effects of austerity would bring to this country? Do you really want to see higher unemplyement? Someone on this forumsaid that there are countries where their poor are poorer than ours, is that what you want for us? A third world country, Hard to beleve that people have such hard hearts and don't have the least bit of empathy for those in neeed in this country.
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


I'm outraged at Obama because the Dems passed the health care bill without reading it and lied about what was in it. We are now seeing that people are unable to keep their insurance, that private insurance costs are going up, and that money will be taken from Medicare. 
I'm outraged at Obama because he was asleep at the wheel during the Benghazi murders. He will not tell us when he knew about it and will not answer the pertinent questions concerning it.
I'm outraged at the deliberate deception when Benghazi first happened, the weeks of lies by Rice or the people who fed her the false information.
Lies, lies, and more lies - that is outrageous to me. If we can't trust the officials and we can't trust the press, how do we learn the truth?
Bonnie


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

From factcheck.org

Republicans claim the presidents $716 billion cuts to Medicare hurt the programs finances. But the opposite is true. These cuts in the future growth of spending prolong the life of the Medicare trust fund, stretching the programs finances out longer than they would last otherwise.

Mitt Romney has claimed that President Barack Obama has robbed Medicare. Rep. Paul Ryan, Romneys running mate, said Obama turned Medicare into a piggy bank to fund Obamacare, promising to stop the raid on Medicare. And the Republican National Committee is promoting on its website a feature it calls Obamas Countdown to Medicares Bankruptcy, which lists the days, hours, minutes and seconds left until the Medicare Part A trust fund is exhausted. But there would be even fewer days until the funds exhaustion if Obamas health care law hadnt included those $700 billion in spending reductions.

Its true that experts, including Medicares chief actuary, doubt that some of those spending cuts will actually be implemented. But if they are, Medicare would spend less each year than it had been expected to otherwise, allowing Medicare to stretch further the income it receives from payroll taxes and premiums.

I don't have time to respond to all the charges, but don't forget that Obama doesn't make the laws, and there are plenty of lies going around in Washington for all of us to be upset over. Also, I have responded twice about my comments regarding YarnLady and don't feel I need to do it again, but here it is: I didn't mean anything I said as an insult. It seemed as though someone else had posted in her name.


----------



## lukka (Dec 16, 2012)

solowerygirl QUOTE

FYI, the federal government is not a political party. What jobs are the federal government going to provide that will actually improve the economy? Seems to me they tried that with the first stimulus and nothing happened. They also invested our money into "green" jobs, that failed big time. If we are not broke, why are we borrowing billions of dollars from other countries? FYI 2006 to 2008 the House and Senate were controlled by the democrats. Bush kept telling them that they can't continue along the lines they were following as it would hurt the economy, but they would not listen. The housing bubble was started by Clinton when he signed the bill that demanded the lenders ease up on lending practices so more people could buy houses and get other loans. This led to this recession. Currently, all this administration has done to improve the recession as allowed it to merely limp along.[/quote]

solo, you had stated before about Clintons housing act, and you could not be more on the money about that piece of destruction. Also along with that act came the strong arming of the banks that did not want to go the route of the housing act. So many people have so much to answer to for the shameful,sad condition our country is in. When interest rates begin to rise and we as a country can nolonger even pay the interest on this monstrosity of a debt, the pains of this recession will look like a little bleep on the radar screen in comparison of what we will face. Our debt is an enemy.


----------



## lukka (Dec 16, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> lukka said:
> 
> 
> > solowerygirl said:
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> lukka said:
> 
> 
> > solowerygirl said:
> ...


I am not a student of economics AT ALL, but in the case of businesses that provide goods and services, who will avail themselves of such if the vast numbers of consumers haven't the money to buy the products? If minimum wages were raised and people had more money to spend wouldn't that boost the economy? If more jobs were available and more people could be retrained for new jobs wouldn't that be a plus? Businesses continue to want to pay low wages, so send jobs overseas. That doesn't help the American worker, does it?
To me, it's a difficult problem, and nobody agrees on the best approach.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

alcameron said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > lukka said:
> ...


Raising the minimum wage will put more money in people's pockets. However, the goods and services they buy will also go up in price as the companies will pass this increase on to the consumer. This will make any increase in the minimum wage null and void. It is a false improvement. We need more jobs, we need more skilled workers. Not everyone needs a masters degree to do a job. That is not a put down to anyone that has a masters or who doesn't want/can't afford to study for one. As a country we have lost many skilled laborers and need to resupply that void. There are jobs out there that cannot be filled at present because there are no skilled workers. These jobs do earn a good wage.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Then we should invest in job training? 
I still don't understand where all these good jobs are. Overseas? It seems to me that companies are always looking for cheap labor. Isn't that why they go overseas? Cheap labor and to avoid taxes?


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I repeat - President Obama has averaged 3 WEEKS of vacation time per year in his first term in office. President GW Bush averaged 15 WEEKS per year in his eight years in office. The President can't exactly check into the Holiday Inn as there are a lot of crazies out there who would love to take a shot at him. He doesn't have the luxury ofa multi-acre ranch or a huge, gated spread in Kennibunkport. Just what would you expect him to do for a vacation?


momeee said:


> Just saw this on yahoo.
> 
> Ummm.". . . behind the gates of the Floridian Yacht and Golf Club, an exclusive resort. . ." Sounds like one of those rich #$%$ 1%'ers that we're all supposed to hate & loathe.
> 
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I guess the president is supposed to stay home and watch his Netflix movie.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Sales taxes take a larger percentage of low incomes than they do of higher incomes. that's just plain math!


soloweygirl said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > The poor and working poor still pay sales tax!
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Alcameron, 
You do not owe me an apology.
We both said what we said, I am just as guilty as to hurting you.
So please lets let it be in the past.

I do think of you as a person who has strong beliefs, as I do, that does not make us enemies, we both care about our country. 
So please do not feel you owe me anything. 
theyarnlady


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Sorry, but your facts are just wrong. "In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent. The largest increase took place in his last year and included, among other things, the $700 billion financial industry bailout bill (TARP) and the federal takeover of Government-Sponsored Enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Figure 1 illustrates that during his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice
as much as his predecessor, President Clinton.
Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent." From a published study from George Mason University in 2009. Now, here are the actual facts for President Obama in his first term in office: "

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

 In the 2009 fiscal year  the last of George W. Bushs presidency  federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

 In fiscal 2010  the first budget under Obama  spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

 In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

 In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Offices estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

 Finally in fiscal 2013  the final budget of Obamas term  spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBOs latest budget outlook.

Over Obamas four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%." This is from the Wall Street Journal, hardly a big Obama backer. The so-called information, which you never mention the source of, is just plain not true!


Lukelucy said:


> Obama has spent 40% more than Bush. He has a Socialistic philosophy. I am an American. I want to live in America - not Russia.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

The rich often know how to make money on the backs of the workers they employ at the lowest possible salaries, with the fewest benefits they can get away with!


joeysomma said:


> lukka said:
> 
> 
> > solowerygirl said:
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

alcameron said:


> From factcheck.org
> 
> Republicans claim the presidents $716 billion cuts to Medicare hurt the programs finances. But the opposite is true. These cuts in the future growth of spending prolong the life of the Medicare trust fund, stretching the programs finances out longer than they would last otherwise.
> 
> ...


Also from Factcheck.org:

"FactChecking Obamas SOTU
The president spins his accomplishments on jobs, health care and deficit reduction in annual address.
Posted on February 13, 2013

Summary
President Obama put a rosy spin on several accomplishments of his administration in his 2013 State of the Union address.

The president claimed that both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion. But thats only an estimate of deficit reduction through fiscal year 2022, and it would be lower if the White House used a different starting point.
Obama touted the growth of 500,000 manufacturing jobs over the past three years, but there has been a net loss of 600,000 manufacturing jobs since he took office. The recent growth also has stalled since July 2012.
He claimed that we have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas. Actual mileage is improving, but Obamas doubled claim refers to a desired miles-per-gallon average for model year 2025.
Obama said the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs. It may be helping, but the slower growth for health care spending began in 2009, before the law was enacted, and is due at least partly to the down economy.
The president also made an exaggerated claim of bipartisanship. He said that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney agreed with him that the minimum wage should be tied to the cost of living. But Romney backed off that view during the campaign."

The truth is hard to find because truth-tellers are rare, especially in politics.

Bonnie


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

If the sales tax is 5% it is 5% for every purchase. It doesn't matter the amount of the sale. That is simple math.[/quote]

If one person pays 5% sales tax but makes $20,000 a year and another pays the same 5% but makes 200,000/year who is hurt more?


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

5% is 5%. People making more money spend more money, therefore they pay more in taxes...... mathmatically equal. 

Therefore if it is mathematically equal, no one is hurt more.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Sales taxes take a larger percentage of low incomes than they do of higher incomes. that's just plain math!
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

The CEO of Costco makes less than $500,000 per year. He pays workers a minimum of $17, plus benefits. Costco is a very successful company. I doubt the CEO of Costco is stupid!


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > The rich often know how to make money on the backs of the workers they employ at the lowest possible salaries, with the fewest benefits they can get away with!
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

alcameron said:


> If the sales tax is 5% it is 5% for every purchase. It doesn't matter the amount of the sale. That is simple math.


If one person pays 5% sales tax but makes $20,000 a year and another pays the same 5% but makes 200,000/year who is hurt more?[/quote]

They both have a choice of making that purchase or not.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Sorry, but your facts are just wrong. "In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent. The largest increase took place in his last year and included, among other things, the $700 billion financial industry bailout bill (TARP) and the federal takeover of Government-Sponsored Enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Figure 1 illustrates that during his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice
> as much as his predecessor, President Clinton.
> Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent." From a published study from George Mason University in 2009. Now, here are the actual facts for President Obama in his first term in office: "
> 
> ...


What Budget there has been no budget for the last four years???
those are estimate all of them, Not what was really paid out. 
Estimates are not cost, they are what they think is projected to be the cost for that year. As there is no budget, there is no way to account for what has or what was spent, just outlooks.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Same rate, not the same percentage of income!


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Generally, people have basic needs which all must purchase. Some buy them at Target, some at Saks. But the sales tax impacts different incomes are affected differently by those taxes.


thumper5316 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > If the sales tax is 5% it is 5% for every purchase. It doesn't matter the amount of the sale. That is simple math.
> ...


They both have a choice of making that purchase or not.[/quote]


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > soloweygirl said:
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Generally, people have basic needs which all must purchase. Some buy them at Target, some at Saks. But the sales tax impacts different incomes are affected differently by those taxes.
> 
> 
> thumper5316 said:
> ...


[/quote]

Perhaps the higher wage earner spends more, thus contributing MORE to the tax coffers.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Why - The income tax has been a graduated tax since the beginning. In fact, the idea is to return it to what it was previously.


momeee said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Doesn't matter. My point is that sales tax imposes a different financial burden on people with small incomes. Yu don't want a different income tax on the wealthy, but it is okay that the sales tax takes more from low income people. You can't have it both ways.


momeee said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Generally, people have basic needs which all must purchase. Some buy them at Target, some at Saks. But the sales tax impacts different incomes are affected differently by those taxes.
> ...


Perhaps the higher wage earner spends more, thus contributing MORE to the tax coffers.[/quote]


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> I guess the president is supposed to stay home and watch his Netflix movie.


I'd prefer he spend a few more days taking came of business.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

It is a huge differential, though.


theyarnlady said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but your facts are just wrong. "In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent. The largest increase took place in his last year and included, among other things, the $700 billion financial industry bailout bill (TARP) and the federal takeover of Government-Sponsored Enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Figure 1 illustrates that during his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Three weeks a year vs. fifteen weeks a year for Bush? Oh, please!


momeee said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the president is supposed to stay home and watch his Netflix movie.
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > If the sales tax is 5% it is 5% for every purchase. It doesn't matter the amount of the sale. That is simple math.
> ...


They both have a choice of making that purchase or not.[/quote]

Not always. A family with 2 children has to buy shoes, school supplies, etc. and probably has no discretionary income. The person with the larger salary probably has more choices and more "extra" income. Yes, he may have to buy school shoes as well, but it doesn't take much of a bite out of his income.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> lukka said:
> 
> 
> > solowerygirl said:
> ...


Thank you joeysomma,lukka,solowerygirl, for thoughtful accurate responses.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

And thank you, pardoquilts, for thoughtful, caring, intelligent, thinking.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Back at you, alcameron.


alcameron said:


> And thank you, pardoquilts, for thoughtful, caring, intelligent, thinking.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

In my opinion, those who are suggesting that the 1% should pay more and that it is an acceptable way to fund an ever growing disaster is without merit. Beyond that, it is really another way of saying that it is okay to arbitrarily take away the money (wealth, earnings, savings, whatever you want to call it) from those that have 'more' than the decision-maker has determined is fair or allowable. Who gets to be the decision-maker? By what RIGHT do you see yourself as being able to determine that this is acceptable or even legal? How about taking away 'stuff' from those who haven't earned it? Do you find that acceptable? I bet you don't. Well, it is the same premise, but perhaps more palatable to some. I personally think that people who don't work - AND ARE ABLE TO - shouldn't be given, i.e., don't deserve what the WORKERS have striven to acquire. Personal responsibility and ambition have been erased from what we are teaching our youngsters and have been replaced by a sense of entitlement and the gimmees.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I repeat - income taxes have always been graduated. This is nothing new, nothing different except the percentage that the 1% would pay. I absolutely agree that there needs to be an adjustment in our spending, but that is not something that President Obama decides. Different proposals will be made, if the congress ever gets its act together, oit will be negotiated, and, I hope, there will be a combination of cuts and increased taxes. that is how things work in D.C. and we are back to the question about a week ago - what do you want to take away from children, no matter what the reason for their poverty? They don't have the gimmes, they just want a reasonable chance in life. Welfare is not making their families rich.



momeee said:


> In my opinion, those who are suggesting that the 1% should pay more and that it is an acceptable way to fund an ever growing disaster is without merit. Beyond that, it is really another way of saying that it is okay to arbitrarily take away the money (wealth, earnings, savings, whatever you want to call it) from those that have 'more' than the decision-maker has determined is fair or allowable. Who gets to be the decision-maker? By what RIGHT do you see yourself as being able to determine that this is acceptable or even legal? How about taking away 'stuff' from those who haven't earned it? Do you find that acceptable? I bet you don't. Well, it is the same premise, but perhaps more palatable to some. I personally think that people who don't work - AND ARE ABLE TO - shouldn't be given, i.e., don't deserve what the WORKERS have striven to acquire. Personal responsibility and ambition have been erased from what we are teaching our youngsters and have been replaced by a sense of entitlement and the gimmees.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

momeee said:


> In my opinion, those who are suggesting that the 1% should pay more and that it is an acceptable way to fund an ever growing disaster is without merit. Beyond that, it is really another way of saying that it is okay to arbitrarily take away the money (wealth, earnings, savings, whatever you want to call it) from those that have 'more' than the decision-maker has determined is fair or allowable. Who gets to be the decision-maker? By what RIGHT do you see yourself as being able to determine that this is acceptable or even legal? How about taking away 'stuff' from those who haven't earned it? Do you find that acceptable? I bet you don't. Well, it is the same premise, but perhaps more palatable to some. I personally think that people who don't work - AND ARE ABLE TO - shouldn't be given, i.e., don't deserve what the WORKERS have striven to acquire. Personal responsibility and ambition have been erased from what we are teaching our youngsters and have been replaced by a sense of entitlement and the gimmees.


I stand with you on that. Thank you for stating what I feel to be true.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Sometimes I just want to ask, "Why are so many people so mean when it comes to helping people who don't earn much?"


----------



## lukka (Dec 16, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> Sorry, but your facts are just wrong. "In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent. The largest increase took place in his last year and included, among other things, the $700 billion financial industry bailout bill (TARP) and the federal takeover of Government-Sponsored Enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Figure 1 illustrates that during his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice
> as much as his predecessor, President Clinton.
> Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent." From a published study from George Mason University in 2009. Now, here are the actual facts for President Obama in his first term in office: "
> 
> ...


----------



## lukka (Dec 16, 2012)

alcameron said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


Not always. A family with 2 children has to buy shoes, school supplies, etc. and probably has no discretionary income. The person with the larger salary probably has more choices and more "extra" income. Yes, he may have to buy school shoes as well, but it doesn't take much of a bite out of his income.[/quote]

You know what Al, it really is no ones business what someone that makes 200,000 buys.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> What budget did Obama have?


none that we know of.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Of course it doesn't make welfare families rich...but it is making the govt. poor. It is estimated that it costs the govt. $60,000. A YEAR in real dollars to keep a person/family on welfare when all aspects of entitlements and benefits are included. I am also sure it does not include extraordinary medical expenses via medicaid. When kids from welfare families go on to foster care, or residential treatment that amount increases. Yet we hear people on this site who have worked, experienced tragedies, who can barely get by. Why? 
Based on my pretty extensive personal experience with welfare recipients I do believe that when too much is given, it makes it very easy for the recipient to become complacent and lose the desire to get out of the cycle of poverty and dependence. Years ago, recipients were embarrassed to need and/or accept govt. help. Not so much today, evidenced by generational dependence. Yes, education is a must, to break the cycle. Today I see extensive welfare fraud, with no consequences. Interestingly, my welfare students were the ones who had Florida/Disney vacations yearly, not the kids of working parents. Also these same kids were the ones who got expensive gifts at xmas from the various charities, as the moms were adept at playing the system, while they were always perfectly coiffured, manicured and stylishly dressed, and able to remain out of the work force. If it weren't so easy for them to live so comfortably, they may have been hungry enough to be willing to take a job, work hard and advance. But their kids learned that they could have it as good, or better, by letting others do it for them. They were the ones who had school trips, athletic, music and other school fees paid for them, summer camp, and ultimately, if they were remotely qualified, got the college scholarships....
I've said before, I am ALL for a safety net, but it has gotten absurd. And, from my perspective, too many have the gimmees and I don't want a penny more of my hard earned money to go to them.



pardoquilts said:


> I repeat - income taxes have always been graduated. This is nothing new, nothing different except the percentage that the 1% would pay. I absolutely agree that there needs to be an adjustment in our spending, but that is not something that President Obama decides. Different proposals will be made, if the congress ever gets its act together, oit will be negotiated, and, I hope, there will be a combination of cuts and increased taxes. that is how things work in D.C. and we are back to the question about a week ago - what do you want to take away from children, no matter what the reason for their poverty? They don't have the gimmes, they just want a reasonable chance in life. Welfare is not making their families rich.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Momee and Joeysomma,

I totally agree with you both.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lukka said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > thumper5316 said:
> ...


You know what Al, it really is no ones business what someone that makes 200,000 buys.[/quote]

I don't care what what they buy and it's nobody's business. I'm just saying that they have much more income than the 20,000 guy and essentials don't take as big a "bite" out of his pocket. Also, I'm just picking numbers to use for an example.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Yes, with data plans also.... What started as a wonderful idea for giving abused and/or threatened women a scene of security via a cell phone that was programmed to call only 911 or other numbers for police response has evolved to a 2 BILLION $$$$ govt. program. Just a question... How many women on this site have data plans for their phones; how many have MULTIPLE phones...yes another welfare fraud perpetrated on the tax payer.



joeysomma said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it doesn't make welfare families rich...but it is making the govt. poor. It is estimated that it costs the govt. $60,000. A YEAR in real dollars to keep a person/family on welfare when all aspects of entitlements and benefits are included. I am also sure it does not include extraordinary medical expenses via medicaid. When kids from welfare families go on to foster care, or residential treatment that amount increases. Yet we hear people on this site who have worked, experienced tragedies, who can barely get by. Why?
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Yes, everyone wants welfare fraud stopped. Shall we hire a welfare fraud police force?


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

I hope you are not being sarcastic...I'm not accusing, but I feel deeply about this and cannot see any end to the way it is going. No good for anyone. If we all have a sense of right and wrong, as so many have indicated, we all should care about any kind of fraud.
Can you imagine what welfare fraud investigating would add to the budget? I know the local agencies have no interest in investigating, and the social workers have too many cases... where does it stop?


alcameron said:


> Yes, everyone wants welfare fraud stopped. Shall we hire a welfare fraud police force?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Just because someone makes $200,000 does not mean that they have money for "essentials". You never know what their lives are like and what is going on financially.
That is not a lot of money these days.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

momeee said:


> I hope you are not being sarcastic...I'm not accusing, but I feel deeply about this and cannot see any end to the way it is going. No good for anyone. If we all have a sense of right and wrong, as so many have indicated, we all should care about any kind of fraud.
> Can you imagine what welfare fraud investigating would add to the budget? I know the local agencies have no interest in investigating, and the social workers have too many cases... where does it stop?
> 
> 
> ...


My point was just that----how on earth do we go about stopping it? It's probably impossible. I give out lunches and other small things like toiletries, some groceries, etc, once a week at my church. If we give someone a bag of groceries, we hope that it goes to that individual and/or his family, but we have no control once we give it. If a person wants to go down the street and sell or trade a can of soup for a pack of cigarettes, s/he will do it and we can't control that. I have to believe that most of the people who come to us have a definite need.
There has to be some degree of trust. Yes, I know there will always be those who try to "work the system" but I choose to believe that they are NOT the majority and leave it at that.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Just because someone makes $200,000 does not mean that they have money for "essentials". You never know what their lives are like and what is going on financially.
> That is not a lot of money these days.


$200,000 is a lot of money to me!


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

momeee said:


> Of course it doesn't make welfare families rich...but it is making the govt. poor. It is estimated that it costs the govt. $60,000. A YEAR in real dollars to keep a person/family on welfare when all aspects of entitlements and benefits are included. I am also sure it does not include extraordinary medical expenses via medicaid. When kids from welfare families go on to foster care, or residential treatment that amount increases. Yet we hear people on this site who have worked, experienced tragedies, who can barely get by. Why?
> Based on my pretty extensive personal experience with welfare recipients I do believe that when too much is given, it makes it very easy for the recipient to become complacent and lose the desire to get out of the cycle of poverty and dependence. Years ago, recipients were embarrassed to need and/or accept govt. help. Not so much today, evidenced by generational dependence. Yes, education is a must, to break the cycle. Today I see extensive welfare fraud, with no consequences. Interestingly, my welfare students were the ones who had Florida/Disney vacations yearly, not the kids of working parents. Also these same kids were the ones who got expensive gifts at xmas from the various charities, as the moms were adept at playing the system, while they were always perfectly coiffured, manicured and stylishly dressed, and able to remain out of the work force. If it weren't so easy for them to live so comfortably, they may have been hungry enough to be willing to take a job, work hard and advance. But their kids learned that they could have it as good, or better, by letting others do it for them. They were the ones who had school trips, athletic, music and other school fees paid for them, summer camp, and ultimately, if they were remotely qualified, got the college scholarships....
> I've said before, I am ALL for a safety net, but it has gotten absurd. And, from my perspective, too many have the gimmees and I don't want a penny more of my hard earned money to go to them.
> 
> ...


I agree whole heartedly. As I stated earlier the line between needs and wants has blurred.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it doesn't make welfare families rich...but it is making the govt. poor. It is estimated that it costs the govt. $60,000. A YEAR in real dollars to keep a person/family on welfare when all aspects of entitlements and benefits are included. I am also sure it does not include extraordinary medical expenses via medicaid. When kids from welfare families go on to foster care, or residential treatment that amount increases. Yet we hear people on this site who have worked, experienced tragedies, who can barely get by. Why?
> ...


In looking at the cars of those at work I know are on assistance I've often wondered why they have the Lexus, Merecdes, and much newer cars while I drive a 13 yo minivan.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

alcameron said:


> Sometimes I just want to ask, "Why are so many people so mean when it comes to helping people who don't earn much?"


Define mean please. How do you know how much people need to fulfill their obligations? What if I made what you would judge to be too much? But, what if I also have family obligations (supporting aging parents, a disabled child or family member, paying off massive medical bills.........) so you believe I am being mean by keeping my obligations but I just choose to keep my finances to myself? Or is it necessary for me to tell you everything, so not to be judged? I have you no right to judge me or anyone else.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

alcameron said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > Just because someone makes $200,000 does not mean that they have money for "essentials". You never know what their lives are like and what is going on financially.
> ...


Again with the judgements about what someone makes. If you must work in NYC, 200K is not over the top. But if you live in a area with a lower cost of living, live in the family home, you might have some extra capital to share. But again, you have no right to judge, even if you were privee to all their private information.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


Actually economists feel that it won't have any effect jobs. and may just put more oney into the conomy.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

momeee said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the president is supposed to stay home and watch his Netflix movie.
> ...


How about boehner? Guess the congress needed a vacation. They work so hard on,,,obstructing Obama.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

momeee said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > lukka said:
> ...


Thoughtful and accurate??? Oh dear this country in a a lot of trouble. The economy is simply supply and demand. People have no money...no need to buy....companies have no need to increase supply, no nee to hire.......vicious cycle. Corporations have to get off their pocketbooks, hire people increase supply and reate demand. However those pesky regulations get in their way of making enormous profits.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

alcameron said:


> And thank you, pardoquilts, for thoughtful, caring, intelligent, thinking.


I'll agree with that............WEll DONE the both of you, I still admire your tenacity in the face of such negativity and perverse ideology.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

off2knit said:


> 5% is 5%. People making more money spend more money, therefore they pay more in taxes...... mathmatically equal.
> 
> Therefore if it is mathematically equal, no one is hurt more.


That's right. Those who earn more usually buy more, and therefore pay more in total in taxes. Their choice. The important thing is that they can buy more because they EARNED more. By hard work and/or intelligence and/or creativity and/or luck, they earned more.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Paul Krugman for starters.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


Paul Krugman for starters.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

off2knit said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Lukelucy said:
> ...


Why do you think I'm judging anyone? I said that I think $200,000 is a lot of money. If you don't think it's much, then I guess you have no concept of what it's like for a family of four to live on $40,000/year. I just find it mean-spirited when people are always making remarks about welfare or people who don't earn much. First I hear "I'm entitled to my opinion" and then I hear "don't judge." Why am I not entitled to MY opinion?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

off2knit said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes I just want to ask, "Why are so many people so mean when it comes to helping people who don't earn much?"
> ...


I feel as though, by the comments I read here about welfare and poor people, that there are strong attitudes against helping them. That's what I mean by "mean."


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > 5% is 5%. People making more money spend more money, therefore they pay more in taxes...... mathmatically equal.
> ...


There are people who maybe have children to put through school who are just above the poverty level who have to buy necessities. That 5% sales tax hurts them more than it hurts a person with a high salary. I'm beginning to think that most people on this forum have no concept of what it's like to live just above the poverty level. If you've never been there, have some compassion.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


I was just scolded for "judging" people. Is that what you're doing when you say that there are people able to work but make no effort to do so? How do you tell if someone is able to work? Who judges how much effort they put into finding a job? I understand that it makes you angry, but I don't think it's quite so easy to make those distinctions.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Sometimes I just want to ask, "Why are so many people so mean when it comes to helping people who don't earn much?"


I don't interpret it as mean, but rather they are perhaps fed up, disgusted, disagreeing with what is perceived as taxpayers' contributions being misused. In my area the abuses of the social services are widely known. While we all pay our taxes we really have no say in how they're used.....war, funds to foreign countries, education, the military, veterans, mentally ill issues medical research, Pork Barrel,....no end of worthwhile causes, and some we'd rather not fund. It would be lovely if we could actually vote on some of these.

Personally, I privately, and sometimes anonymously do what I am comfortable doing to help others.i don't publicize it and don't want to be known for what causes I favor. Again, the wonderful thing about the USA is I have free choice. I would fight to my death to protect the rights given to us in our constitution, and would defend anyone else's even if we were not in agreement.

And as you have seen, some people are just plain mean, some on KP, some definitely out in the general public. They are unhappy, envious, probably unsuccessful in most aspects of their lives, and possibly have mental health issues. I can't fix them, or change their perspective, all I can do is take care of myself and those I care about in my life, and follow my conscience in whatever I encounter. I say what I believe, hopefully always with respect, and that is all I expect in return. I don't judge, or expect to be judged, nor would I feel I had the right to determine how a person deals with issues ( especially financial) in his personal life especially when he has taken personal responsibility for his life. On the other hand, I do believe that when one expects the govt to provide for him, and has demonstrated an unwillingness for personal responsibility, I think all contributors deserve a say, and I'm nor referring to those who need a safety net or temporary assist to get back on track. Aren't you glad you asked?


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> I guess the president is supposed to stay home and watch his Netflix movie.


Come on, you are ridiculing a comment about a show I watchedand recommended ???

I would prefer to have a president do what is demanded in his position....working on, presenting a do-able budget, trying to get some agreement and cooperation in congress, being available when notified of a crisis and threat to our security (remember Bengazhi and the 4 murdered Americans) , rather than continuing on to the campaign trail...and not staying in touch with those who were left in charge, to mention a few. I'm sure others could add more.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Why would they have to be concerned about putting children through school. Public school is free, free lunch, and any other charges for public school uaually are paid by some fund.


As the mother of a school-age child I have to say that public schools are not free. It's true my son doesn't have to pay tuition at his charter school, but uniforms, school supplies, field trips, and lunches all take a big bite out of our budget. In addition the school expects each family to contribute a minimum of $1500 per year, those who fall short of this sum get dunning letters from the school principal. It's unpleasant, to say the least.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > Why would they have to be concerned about putting children through school. Public school is free, free lunch, and any other charges for public school uaually are paid by some fund.
> ...


I realize charter schools get the funds from the public school that would be consistent with the per pupil cost, but have never known that parents were expected to contribute; school uniforms? If he were there, and if you qualified, there are numerous other things that would be available to him, wouldst there? In my area all fees for school activities materials would be waved, he'd get free and reduced meals ( in some places breakfast and lunch, and take-home meals for the weekend, all school supplies would be provided...books, pens, pencils, notebooks, etc.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > Why would they have to be concerned about putting children through school. Public school is free, free lunch, and any other charges for public school uaually are paid by some fund.
> ...


I realize charter schools get the funds from the public school that would be consistent with the per pupil cost, but have never known that parents were expected to contribute; school uniforms? If he were in a public school, and if you qualified, there are numerous other things that would be available to him, wouldst there? In my area all fees for school activities materials would be waved, he'd get free and reduced meals ( in some places breakfast and lunch, and take-home meals for the weekend, all school supplies would be provided...books, pens, pencils, notebooks, etc.


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

off2knit said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Lukelucy said:
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Not all economic theorists would agree with you. There is much debate on this subject among those of differing opinions.Not everyone is a fan of Keynes today.


rocky1991 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

It is a lot of money, but I know people who make that and are having troubles...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Paul Krugman for starters.
> ...


They say NO, but that goes for eerything Obama wants,


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

So now Obama is playing golf with Tiger Woods. What about our country? There are things he should be doing instead of that. I never heard of any other president doing such things.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

If you make $1,000, $50 is 5% of your total income. If you make $100, $50 is half your total income. If Mr. $1,000 buys something, pays a 5% tax rate on it, and the dollar amount of the tax is $50, he is spending 5% of his income for that sales tax. If Mrs. $100 saves up to buy something with a sales tax of 5%, and that tax totals $50, that amount is HALF her income.


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Same rate, not the same percentage of income!
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

momeee said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


It's true, the International School of Monterey is part of a worldwide chain (hate to use that word when talking about a school, but it's true) that of course receives government money but gets about 15% of its annual budget from the parents of the students. In their words:

"The suggested contribution level is $1,800 per student and is based on the difference between what the District provides and the additional costs to operate the school. Compare this to the $18,000+ pricetag typical for private education including other International Schools around the world, or to the amount you had paid for daycare. For just a $150 gift per month, ISM students get a world class education!"

And yes, I don't doubt they cut the children of financially struggling parents some slack, but this is a small school (about 500 students in a K-8 setup) and everyone knows who "pulls their weight" and who does not.

Is it worth it? Yes. The district schools in Seaside are dismal (despite the name the school is not located in Monterey but rather a neighboring town) and many local parents would do anything to avoid them. But it isn't easy--besides the financial contributions the parents are expected to put in so many "volunteer" hours per year cleaning classrooms, manning the library and computer labs, doing grounds maintenance, working in the front office etc etc. When the school decided it needed a garden parents were expected to provide the heavy equipment (rental of a backhoe and bulldozer), the materials (fencing materials, seeds, compost), and the labor (an army of parents toiling with shovels and hoes). It's not a free ride by any means.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

From the Wall Street Journal? Hardly a fan of the Obama Administration.


lukka said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but your facts are just wrong. "In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent. The largest increase took place in his last year and included, among other things, the $700 billion financial industry bailout bill (TARP) and the federal takeover of Government-Sponsored Enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Figure 1 illustrates that during his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

One more time - George W. Bush spent an average of FIFTEEN weeks per year on vacation. President Obama has spent an average of THREE weeks a year on vacation. Dwight eisenhower was known for playing golf - a lot - and most other Presidents have done so as well. And they like to play golf with big time pros. The vacation time is a matter of public record. If you didn't hear about GW's vacation time, you weren't paying attention.


Lukelucy said:


> So now Obama is playing golf with Tiger Woods. What about our country? There are things he should be doing instead of that. I never heard of any other president doing such things.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

momeee said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the president is supposed to stay home and watch his Netflix movie.
> ...


No, I don't know what you watched and recommended. That's what we were doing when I wrote it.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Please actually look at what I said. You are not getting the difference between a sales tax rate and the percentage of income the dollar amount is. $50 is 5% of $1000. $50 is half of $100. So, if you pay $50 worth of sales tax, no matter what the rate is, and your income is $1000, you are paying 5% of your income for that sales tax. If you pay $50 worth of sales tax, and your total income is $100, you are paying 50% of your income for sales tax, no matter what the rate is.


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > If you make $1,000, $50 is 5% of your total income. If you make $100, $50 is half your total income. If Mr. $1,000 buys something, pays a 5% tax rate on it, and the dollar amount of the tax is $50, he is spending 5% of his income for that sales tax. If Mrs. $100 saves up to buy something with a sales tax of 5%, and that tax totals $50, that amount is HALF her income.
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

The person who makes a million dollars a year doesn't bat an eyelash when he buys something and pays a mere 5% sales tax. The person who makes 20,000 a year feels it when he pays 5% sales tax on a new washer and dryer---if he can afford new stuff. Why is that so hard to understand?


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

The Minneapolis Public Schools are horrible as well. My DH, my hero, worked two jobs for 10 years so that we could send our two youngest boys to private high school. We learned how bad the public schools are when our oldest went through public high school. Tuition was $17,900/year, plus uniforms, and other fees. Was it a huge financial sacrifice? ABSOLUTELY. Was it worth it? ABSOLUTELY.

When the boys started at this school they were horribly behind in writing skills and had to stay after school every day for about three months to catch up.

They both received scholarships for college, one of them receiving a full scholarship. The grades they worked for at their private high school were weighted by colleges considering them for admission. In other words an A from their school counted higher than an A from public schools. The colleges knew the quality of the education received from the school.

Were we to have to do it all over again we are in agreement that we would have applied for their admission to this school at a younger age.

Any out there that have their youngsters in public schools I say RUN! Enroll them in a private school as quickly as you possibly can or home school them.



susanmos2000 said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > susanmos2000 said:
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

alcameron said:


> The person who makes a million dollars a year doesn't bat an eyelash when he buys something and pays a mere 5% sales tax. The person who makes 20,000 a year feels it when he pays 5% sales tax on a new washer and dryer---if he can afford new stuff. Why is that so hard to understand?


Craig's list has scads of gently used ones they can buy with no tax.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I don't think anyone can say what the public schools are like in any given city.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > The person who makes a million dollars a year doesn't bat an eyelash when he buys something and pays a mere 5% sales tax. The person who makes 20,000 a year feels it when he pays 5% sales tax on a new washer and dryer---if he can afford new stuff. Why is that so hard to understand?
> ...


Yes, and I'm sure that's what some people have to do. Heaven forbid they should want something new once in awhile!


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

If you are spending that much for private school tuition and it was a hardship, you should be able,to understand that there are people who earn in a year what you spent on education. I am not criticizing your choice. I am just trying to suggest to you that maybe you don't quite understand the hardship that some people have in their lives all the time.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Please actually look at what I said. You are not getting the difference between a sales tax rate and the percentage of income the dollar amount is. $50 is 5% of $1000. $50 is half of $100. So, if you pay $50 worth of sales tax, no matter what the rate is, and your income is $1000, you are paying 5% of your income for that sales tax. If you pay $50 worth of sales tax, and your total income is $100, you are paying 50% of your income for sales tax, no matter what the rate is.
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

That is correct. And that is what I said. If you make $100 as salary, save up your money, and you but that washer and dryer for $1,000 you would pay $50 in sales tax which is 50% of your total income. If you make $1,000 as salary and you buy a washer and dryer for $1,000, you will still pay the $50 in sales tax, but it will only be 5% of your income. What is so hard for you about that? $50 is a bigger portion, also known as percentage, of $100 than of $1,000.


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Please actually look at what I said. You are not getting the difference between a sales tax rate and the percentage of income the dollar amount is. $50 is 5% of $1000. $50 is half of $100. So, if you pay $50 worth of sales tax, no matter what the rate is, and your income is $1000, you are paying 5% of your income for that sales tax. If you pay $50 worth of sales tax, and your total income is $100, you are paying 50% of your income for sales tax, no matter what the rate is.
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

alcameron said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Actually, I agree that it hurts some more than others. My "that's right" had to due with the "mathematically equal." This problem is so complicated. On one hand, is it right to take away what someone else has earned? On the other, is it right that some have so much more than they need while others don't have enough? Neither one is right, in my opinion. How do we solve it? Every solution presents even more questions. If the government provides for people to have the necessities of life, where is the line drawn on necessities? Food, shelter, clothing - but does food include dessert? Does shelter include pictures on the wall? Does clothing include more than the basics? Do we include costs of education in there as a way to improve the situation? To tell you the truth, it's just too complicated for me to figure out. But we have to reduce suffering and improve people's ability to care for themselves and their families. Any ideas?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > bonbf3 said:
> ...


Thank you. You demonstrate compassion.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

momeee said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes I just want to ask, "Why are so many people so mean when it comes to helping people who don't earn much?"
> ...


Well said, momeee.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

alcameron said:


> If you are spending that much for private school tuition and it was a hardship, you should be able,to understand that there are people who earn in a year what you spent on education. I am not criticizing your choice. I am just trying to suggest to you that maybe you don't quite understand the hardship that some people have in their lives all the time.


And did you see the part that my husband WORKED TWO JOBS so we could afford it?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

alcameron said:


> I don't think anyone can say what the public schools are like in any given city.


That's true, rating schools for quality is tricky. In our case our son attended a highly-rated district school (La Mesa Elementary) for two years while we waited for a slot to open up at the International School. La Mesa consistently rates a 9 out of 10 in terms of education--no one could have any problem with that, right?

Well, we did. At the time 90% of the kids came from military families, there was very little diversity in the student body. And of course these military families were constantly being transferred in and out of the area--my son made some good friends who, almost without exception, moved away within a year when Dad was transferred to Texas or wherever.

Even the school's high test scores came at a price--the kids were expected to fill out reams of worksheets, were drilled on almost a daily basis in various test-taking skills, and subjects like foreign languages and the arts were skipped altogether. In my son's final year in the school the library and computer lab were closed for a lack of funding--believe me, we were thrilled when space unexpectedly opened up at the charter school!


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I'm going to try this one more time.

Each person spends $1,000.

Each person pays $50 in sales tax, which is a 5% sales tax rate for a $1,000 purchase.

Person A earns $1,000 a month. That is salary, not what they spent. Person A is charged $50 tax for their purchase of $1,000. The $50 they pay in sales tax is 5% of their salary. It also happens to be at a 5% sales tax rate.

Person B earns $100 a month. Again, this is salary, NOT WHAT THEY ARE SPENDING. They spend $1,000 for their purchase and are charged $50 sales tax. That $50 is still at a 5% sales tax rate, but it is 50% of their salary.


joeysomma said:


> I agree $50 is 50% of $100. That would make a 50% sales tax rate.
> 
> I agree $50 is 5% of $1000. That is a 5% sales tax rate.
> 
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > The person who makes a million dollars a year doesn't bat an eyelash when he buys something and pays a mere 5% sales tax. The person who makes 20,000 a year feels it when he pays 5% sales tax on a new washer and dryer---if he can afford new stuff. Why is that so hard to understand?
> ...


Yes, and every time you buy used goods the economy takes a hit. Remember that bonus families received about 5 years ago? About $500 from the government--NOT to be put toward credit card debts or squirreled away, but rather to be spent on new consumer goods so the manufacturers would experience a boost in sales.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> I'm going to try this one more time.
> 
> Each person spends $1,000.
> 
> ...


Joeysmama..........you are not interpreting this correctly. you are thinking taxes, Pardo is thinking percentage of income......two different things


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

The person making $100 a month saved up, collected aluminum cans and sold them, knitted things and sold them whatever. You asked for an example and I tried to keep it in round numbers for simplicity's sake.

The $5 takes much more out of the budget of the $100 earner than out of the $1,000 earner. If the $100 earner pays $5 in sales tax, they have $95 left to spend on other things. If the $1,000 earner pays $5 in sales tax they still have $995 to spend. They both earned it, and I'm not saying the $1,000 earner is bad or wrong or any of that. I"m also not saying that anybody is paying 50% sales tax.

I'm not saying the sales tax rate is different. I'm saying that sales taxes are the same for everyone, but they have a bigger inpact on low income people than they do on higher earners. A graduated income tax, which is where this conversation started, is an attempt to level that field, a bit. If you don't understand that, you are beyond help.


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to try this one more time.
> ...


----------



## lukka (Dec 16, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> From the Wall Street Journal? Hardly a fan of the Obama Administration.
> 
> 
> pardoquilts said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I think this is hopeless. You, I suspect, are deliberately misunderstanding the point. I'm talking about people who spend the same amount of money for an item ($1,000). They pay the same sales tax ($50). But the deduction from the $100 income has a greater impact on them than the SAME sales tax deduction has on the $1,000 income. Why is this so hard for you to get? I'm not talking about taxing their income, I'm talking about how much they will have left after they pay the sales tax, since they both spent the same amount of money. This does explain, though, some of your opinions about economics.


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > The person making $100 a month saved up, collected aluminum cans and sold them, knitted things and sold them whatever. You asked for an example and I tried to keep it in round numbers for simplicity's sake.
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

alcameron said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


Thanks, Andrea.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> I think this is hopeless. You, I suspect, are deliberately misunderstanding the point. I'm talking about people who spend the same amount of money for an item ($1,000). They pay the same sales tax ($50). But the deduction from the $100 income has a greater impact on them than the SAME sales tax deduction has on the $1,000 income. Why is this so hard for you to get? I'm not talking about taxing their income, I'm talking about how much they will have left after they pay the sales tax, since they both spent the same amount of money. This does explain, though, some of your opinions about economics.
> 
> 
> joeysomma said:
> ...


Your comparison is ridiculous. Are you deliberately misunderstaning what pardo is saying?


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

To whom much is given, much is expected.

Yes, 5% is 5%, but people with low incomes feel the bite more than people with higher incomes. Indeed, it seems that some people who participate in KP topics like this don't seem to have a clear understanding of what it means to live below the poverty line.

Sales tax rates differ from state to state. I get to pay 9.5% in sales tax. I am on a fixed income so I have to cut back on something, which is a real magic trick for me, if I want to spend $50 on something that isn't included in my general budget. Also, I don't want to touch my savings as I will need them at some point in the future to help care for me when I'm a lot older. 

The $4.75 I have to pay in sales tax on a $50 purchase means another cutback in a personal budget that is already very stretched. That $4.75 might mean buying less fresh and wholesome foods that keep me healthy and help me to avoid burdening Medicare. I do a pretty good job of including everything I can think of in my budget (including buying yarn...). However, sometimes a very unusual purchase that can't planned for becomes necessary. I'm not getting welfare to sit round and use to spend on smartphones, etc. I worked and paid into Social Security, until I retired at age 65.

Concerning public schools, they are a lot less "free" than they used to be, or than some of you seem to think they are. Teachers even have to buy supplies for their classes. While there are some programs that pay a part of a child's education expenses, there is still much that has to be paid for by parents and/or guardians.

I support the graduated income tax and believe the 1% need to make a greater contribution, percentage-wise, in income tax. Various social welfare programs I may or may not participate in, such as Food Stamps, need funding. Of course fraud and waste need to be rooted out whenever they're found so that people who are getting benefits under false pretences can't continue to commit fraud.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> I think this is hopeless. You, I suspect, are deliberately misunderstanding the point. I'm talking about people who spend the same amount of money for an item ($1,000). They pay the same sales tax ($50). But the deduction from the $100 income has a greater impact on them than the SAME sales tax deduction has on the $1,000 income. Why is this so hard for you to get? I'm not talking about taxing their income, I'm talking about how much they will have left after they pay the sales tax, since they both spent the same amount of money. This does explain, though, some of your opinions about economics.
> 
> 
> joeysomma said:
> ...


It explains much about yours as well.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > If you are spending that much for private school tuition and it was a hardship, you should be able,to understand that there are people who earn in a year what you spent on education. I am not criticizing your choice. I am just trying to suggest to you that maybe you don't quite understand the hardship that some people have in their lives all the time.
> ...


Thumper, congrats for doing the best for your children. Not many people sacrifice today for their children. Way to go!

My husband worked hared to college educate two girls without any loans or grants for any of us to pay when they finished college. Today I hear about either the child or parents being in debt over $100,00 for one child's school.

True today we live in a 60 year old house with 30 year old furniture, but the girls are well adjusted in life and are already sacrificing for their children's education. We leave this life with nothing so our children were worth the good life we gave them.

It does not bother me that some of my friends have new cars/houses fine clothes or diamond rings as some have had a horrible time with the children. I wear my old clothing without diamonds and drive my 2000 car but I am proud of what we accomplished with our two girls.


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Momeee you're a TEN!


bonbf3 said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Math concepts are the same the world over. I'm certain a child in China, Peru, Chicago (maybe), Socotra in second grade would get the question correct.


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to try this one more time.
> ...


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

You get a FIVE. Maybe this is why the people in DC have trouble with preparing a budget.


joeysomma said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Janeway what you and your husband chose to do is the best investment out there. And those kind of decisions are what makes our country great. And in many ways. All children brought into this world should be so fortunate. Bravo to you.


Janeway said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Perhaps some reading this don't realize that the sales tax in a number of states is highte-5%, 6%, 7%, and even 8%, I believe. Additionally some cities and towns have added an additional 1%....Not that this useless piece of info changes anything, except that depending on where you live and shop, some pay more and some pay less - NH has NO sales tax. Does anyone know of other states without sales tax? People who live in contiguous states often travel to the no-sales-tax state to make major purchases...leaving their home state losing the opportunity to get that tax revenue.
Nothing is cut and dry, and simple , it seems.



SeattleSoul said:


> To whom much is given, much is expected.
> 
> Yes, 5% is 5%, but people with low incomes feel the bite more than people with higher incomes. Indeed, it seems that some people who participate in KP topics like this don't seem to have a clear understanding of what it means to live below the poverty line.
> 
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> One more time - George W. Bush spent an average of FIFTEEN weeks per year on vacation. President Obama has spent an average of THREE weeks a year on vacation. Dwight eisenhower was known for playing golf - a lot - and most other Presidents have done so as well. And they like to play golf with big time pros. The vacation time is a matter of public record. If you didn't hear about GW's vacation time, you weren't paying attention.
> 
> 
> Lukelucy said:
> ...


I don't know the facts of the 15, weeks vs 3 weeks, but I question both. And I'd like to know what each cost- in real dollars regarding the details of the vacation. Lavish and with entourage? Or home on the ranch - and no, I'm no fan of the little shrub, either.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I think this is hopeless. You, I suspect, are deliberately misunderstanding the point. I'm talking about people who spend the same amount of money for an item ($1,000). They pay the same sales tax ($50). But the deduction from the $100 income has a greater impact on them than the SAME sales tax deduction has on the $1,000 income. Why is this so hard for you to get? I'm not talking about taxing their income, I'm talking about how much they will have left after they pay the sales tax, since they both spent the same amount of money. This does explain, though, some of your opinions about economics.
> ...


To whom it may concern:

I understand pardo. She's saying that 5% is a bigger chunk of the spendable money of a $1000/month earner than of a $10,000/month earner. It's not a bigger percentage of the COST of the item. It's a bigger percent of the SOURCE OF PAYMENT. I think others might have misunderstood her. 
Bonnie


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Oregon doesn't have a sales tax.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Minnesota has not only a state tax but a sales tax rate of 7% on most items. 7.5% if you happen to be shopping or live in Hennepin County. Our governor is now looking at wanting to increase the taxes that we pay on just about everything. Many Minnesotans, democrats and republicans alike, are becoming increasingly disgusted. How much more do our politicians think we will pay and pay and pay before we just up and move?!



momeee said:


> Perhaps some reading this don't realize that the sales tax in a number of states is highte-5%, 6%, 7%, and even 8%, I believe. Additionally some cities and towns have added an additional 1%....Not that this useless piece of info changes anything, except that depending on where you live and shop, some pay more and some pay less - NH has NO sales tax. Does anyone know of other states without sales tax? People who live in contiguous states often travel to the no-sales-tax state to make major purchases...leaving their home state losing the opportunity to get that tax revenue.
> Nothing is cut and dry, and simple , it seems.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


She either doesn't get it or chooses not to. She was using numbers drawn out of the sky just to make her point, which was missed by some, I guess.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Sales tax in my city is 9% but it can go up to 9.75 depending on what city you're in. In Minnesota, where I used to live, there was no tax on clothing, but I imagine that's changed by now.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I'm not quite sure what the difference is. "Lavish with entourage" implies that the President and his family have the option of booking a week at the Holiday Inn. They don't. They must use Air Force One - the same transportation method George Bush used to get to his ranch. As for the accuracy of three weeks vs. fifteen weeks, check our Mark Knoller, NBC's White House correspondent. He has kept track of presidential vacation statistics for a number of years. That is where I got the information. President Bush often had guests at his ranch, which I think is the same as an entourage. He also had access to the Bush family compound in Kennibunkport, Maine.


momeee said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > One more time - George W. Bush spent an average of FIFTEEN weeks per year on vacation. President Obama has spent an average of THREE weeks a year on vacation. Dwight eisenhower was known for playing golf - a lot - and most other Presidents have done so as well. And they like to play golf with big time pros. The vacation time is a matter of public record. If you didn't hear about GW's vacation time, you weren't paying attention.
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Let me put it another way.

Alice has $1000 in her purse. (Lucky Alice!)
Brenda has $10,000 in her purse. (Lucky-lucky Brenda!!)

Alice buys an item for $100. She pays 5% sales tax on that item. Her total cost is $105.
Brenda buys an item for $100. She pays 5% sales tax on that item. Her total cost is $105. 

Alice paid 5% sales tax, which was $5. That was .5% of her money. That's five/TENTHS of her money.
Brenda paid 5% sales tax, which was $5. That was .05% of her money. That's five/HUNDREDTHS of her money.

That's a factor of ten to one. 

Therefore, Alice's payment of the tax had TEN TIMES the impact on Alice's money 

as 

Brenda's payment of the same tax had on Brenda's money.

Brenda started with ten times the money Alice had.
The tax they both paid had only one/tenth the impact on Brenda's larger amount of money.


I tried to be clear. I think I have it right. Does that make sense to anyone?


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Joensomma will not because she chooses not to.


bonbf3 said:


> Let me put it another way.
> 
> Alice has $1000 in her purse. (Lucky Alice!)
> Brenda has $10,000 in her purse. (Lucky-lucky Brenda!!)
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Budget deficit as of today Goverment owes
Obama 2009 

10,626,877,048,913.08

Feb. 18, 2013 

16,066,214,407,385.89

deficit 2008 during Bush's term in office

10,024,724,896,912.49

Money borrowed by United States as of 2012

China 1.1 trillion

Japan 800 billion

Middle East Countrys 173 billion

Russia 168 billion

Brazil 164 billion

Taiwan 152 Billion

Obama has ask for the debit ceiling to be raise in order to borrow more. Obama has already in the 16 trillion having been spent, as to Bush 10+ trillion while in office

So how is that that Obama has spent least??? 16 + trillion as of today. 

We still have four more years to go.

These facts from U.S goverment site. Office for budget accountability.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

alcameron said:


> Then we should invest in job training?
> I still don't understand where all these good jobs are. Overseas? It seems to me that companies are always looking for cheap labor. Isn't that why they go overseas? Cheap labor and to avoid taxes?


One also has to add to the equation the fact that Americans do not want to pay a lot of money for a product. We have gotten use to the cheaper goods from overseas and our manufacturing cannot produce a product that cheap.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

People here do not want to work for lower wages. They will go unemployed in order to avoid those jobs. Our country is not on the right track. Jobs are out there, but they are not desirable to Americans because of the lower wages. Americans want, want, want "things".


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> Sales taxes take a larger percentage of low incomes than they do of higher incomes. that's just plain math!
> 
> 
> soloweygirl said:
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> I'm not quite sure what the difference is. "Lavish with entourage" implies that the President and his family have the option of booking a week at the Holiday Inn. They don't. They must use Air Force One - the same transportation method George Bush used to get to his ranch. As for the accuracy of three weeks vs. fifteen weeks, check our Mark Knoller, NBC's White House correspondent. He has kept track of presidential vacation statistics for a number of years. That is where I got the information. President Bush often had guests at his ranch, which I think is the same as an entourage. He also had access to the Bush family compound in Kennibunkport, Maine.
> 
> 
> momeee said:
> ...


My assumption regarding both bush residences is that they were privately owned, paid taxes on, and weren't paid for or maintained by govt. such as camp David or when a POTUS vacations at a pvt resort or pvtly owned enclave. When a vacation is taken wouldn't it be nice to see some fiscal restraint, given how most Americans are struggling to survive and are not vacationing? I don't know whether the Clinton's were paying or gratis when they vacationed in pvt homes on the vineyard. Perhaps looking at actual costs of various POTUs' and family members' vacations and comparing them to vacation / non-working days would shed some light on topic. I would like to know what types of vacations the former presidents' kids were treated to by taxpayers.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

alcameron said:


> Sometimes I just want to ask, "Why are so many people so mean when it comes to helping people who don't earn much?"


Why are so many people so greedy that they have to take so much from those that earned it to give to those that want it?

It seems the better thing to do would be to actually break down those that truly need help from those that don't. I can almost guarantee that the actual number of the population that is truly needy and can't do for themselves is not that large, it's just overgeneralized. Others might need some help, but are capable of working and want to work. Then there are those that don't want to work at all, just want the handout. Then there are retirees, that live on fixed incomes that can use help too. Breaking down the system is a way to start, with an outcome that will be beneficial.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> People here do not want to work for lower wages. They will go unemployed in order to avoid those jobs. Our country is not on the right track. Jobs are out there, but they are not desirable to Americans because of the lower wages. Americans want, want, want "things".


Ive heard that complaint from people from many states. In vt, the agricultural, farm, and hospitality businesses could not continue to function with out the LEGAL foreign workers who are brought in on a temporary basis. There are plenty of jobs, year round, but our generational welfare residents won't take them. The solution would seem to be denial of welfare checks for able bodied folks, and rewarding those who will take these important jobs...perhaps making up the difference between welfare and the earned amt, if any, allowing the welfare to keep benefits until, or if, they can transition into a situation where they do not need help. But what do I know? I'm just a beleaguered tax payer.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes I just want to ask, "Why are so many people so mean when it comes to helping people who don't earn much?"
> ...


To me "help" is very different from long term support where welfare is a way of life. I go out of my way to help those who help themselves....


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Budget deficit as of today Goverment owes
> Obama 2009
> 
> 10,626,877,048,913.08
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


Not all businesses or corporations make enormous profits. The majority are getting by and have drastically cut their expenditures so they can stay in business and keep their employees. A manufacturing company cannot make more product when they can only afford to purchase a limited amount of supplies. Yes, the regulations and additional taxes placed on businesses is stopping them from hiring and expanding. Yes, this country is in a lot of trouble.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

I know Michelle O. was having a great time with her kids flying all over the world on our tax payer money. Shopping trips in Europe. She is just the worst.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

bonbf3 said:


> Let me put it another way.
> 
> Alice has $1000 in her purse. (Lucky Alice!)
> Brenda has $10,000 in her purse. (Lucky-lucky Brenda!!)
> ...


Don't buy the item if you can't afford it. You have choices, use them wisely.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Budget deficit as of today Goverment owes
> Obama 2009
> 
> 10,626,877,048,913.08
> ...


Good work, yarnie!


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> People here do not want to work for lower wages. They will go unemployed in order to avoid those jobs. Our country is not on the right track. Jobs are out there, but they are not desirable to Americans because of the lower wages. Americans want, want, want "things".


Such a shame. I remember when people were proud to work hard. A hard worker was admired. You didn't have to be a college graduate to be proud of your accomplishments. Real men weren't ashamed to get their hands dirty to support their families.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


We are discussing who feels the tax debt more......someone who earns 20k or 200k........not just the ssales tax.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > People here do not want to work for lower wages. They will go unemployed in order to avoid those jobs. Our country is not on the right track. Jobs are out there, but they are not desirable to Americans because of the lower wages. Americans want, want, want "things".
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: and they'd do anything to avoid taking govt handouts as they considered it a personal failing and thus an embarrassment. We must be from a different generation. I was taught that I could not buy anything unless I had the money to pay for it. My parents had only elementary school educations, worked in mills yet owned 2 homes, mortgage free, and paid cash for every car they bought. Granted, it was a different time, but they never felt they needed to have the luxuries others did. They were proud and owed no one.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Let me put it another way.
> 
> Alice has $1000 in her purse. (Lucky Alice!)
> Brenda has $10,000 in her purse. (Lucky-lucky Brenda!!)
> ...


I get it and you explained it very well. thank you


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Budget deficit as of today Goverment owes
> Obama 2009
> 
> 10,626,877,048,913.08
> ...


According to the reps uring Bush's terms.........DEFICITS DON'T MATTER. what has changed.......Obama is president.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> People here do not want to work for lower wages. They will go unemployed in order to avoid those jobs. Our country is not on the right track. Jobs are out there, but they are not desirable to Americans because of the lower wages. Americans want, want, want "things".


What is a reasonable living wage? Working for less money and not being able to live adecent life seems to be very frustrating. I suppose I can't blame people for accepting lower wages.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I know Michelle O. was having a great time with her kids flying all over the world on our tax payer money. Shopping trips in Europe. She is just the worst.


I really like Michelle Obama and want her to vacation well. Same for Obama. In the long run the amount spent on their vacations is a drop in the bucket to our spending,


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

momeee said:


> Perhaps some reading this don't realize that the sales tax in a number of states is highte-5%, 6%, 7%, and even 8%, I believe. Additionally some cities and towns have added an additional 1%....Not that this useless piece of info changes anything, except that depending on where you live and shop, some pay more and some pay less - NH has NO sales tax. Does anyone know of other states without sales tax? People who live in contiguous states often travel to the no-sales-tax state to make major purchases...leaving their home state losing the opportunity to get that tax revenue.
> Nothing is cut and dry, and simple , it seems.
> 
> [quote
> ...


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

bonbf3 said:


> Let me put it another way.
> 
> Alice has $1000 in her purse. (Lucky Alice!)
> Brenda has $10,000 in her purse. (Lucky-lucky Brenda!!)
> ...


It made sense to me from the beginning. It still comes down to the same old argument. Rich vs poor and who should pay more taxes.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

momeee said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


Good point. "Help" will need to be broken down as well.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

bonbf3 said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > People here do not want to work for lower wages. They will go unemployed in order to avoid those jobs. Our country is not on the right track. Jobs are out there, but they are not desirable to Americans because of the lower wages. Americans want, want, want "things".
> ...


This is a big problem. We, as a country, have turned a corner and skilled labor(ors) is/are looked down upon. Now everyone needs a college education no matter the cost, no matter if the person wants to attend or not and no matter if there is a job out there or not.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

RUKnitting said:


> Janeway what you and your husband chose to do is the best investment out there. And those kind of decisions are what makes our country great. And in many ways. All children brought into this world should be so fortunate. Bravo to you.
> 
> 
> Janeway said:
> ...


Thank you but it was "our" responsibility to give our girls the very best possible for a good life.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > Budget deficit as of today Goverment owes
> ...


Yarnie, you go girl!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I know Michelle O. was having a great time with her kids flying all over the world on our tax payer money. Shopping trips in Europe. She is just the worst.


The first time I will be proud of this country in a long time is when that woman is gone, long gone.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

momeee said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > Lukelucy said:
> ...


They were exceptional people.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me put it another way.
> ...


Thanks, Rocky. After I got into it, I couldn't even remember how to do the percents right. Google to the rescue!


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

I think part of the problem is mass media - because now we SEE how the "other half" lives. We know what some people have, and we want it, too. I think that's also why so many people around the world have turned to capitalism (even Communist countries - that was quite a shock) and more individual freedom. They saw it - and they wanted it. And that was good. Now, we seem to be "wanting it all." Maybe that's not so good.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> I think part of the problem is mass media - because now we SEE how the "other half" lives. We know what some people have, and we want it, too. I think that's also why so many people around the world have turned to capitalism (even Communist countries - that was quite a shock) and more individual freedom. They saw it - and they wanted it. And that was good. Now, we seem to be "wanting it all." Maybe that's not so good.


That's true enough, but you can't entirely blame folks for their acquisitiveness...the scrimp and save/do without mentality does great things for one's personal finances but is terrible for the economy. The government knows this...that's why they were explicit about what the recipients of those rebate checks a few years ago were supposed to do with the money--go to the nearest department store and spend every last cent. I also remember some government/economic expert a couple of years ago encouraging folks to commit themselves to "one night on the town" per week--dinner and a movie--just to get the economy back on track.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

[
Not all businesses or corporations make enormous profits. The majority are getting by and have drastically cut their expenditures so they can stay in business and keep their employees. A manufacturing company cannot make more product when they can only afford to purchase a limited amount of supplies. Yes, the regulations and additional taxes placed on businesses is stopping them from hiring and expanding. Yes, this country is in a lot of trouble.[/quote]

IF the taxes continue on the struggling businesses, many will be forced to lay off workers and eventually close.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps some reading this don't realize that the sales tax in a number of states is highte-5%, 6%, 7%, and even 8%, I believe. Additionally some cities and towns have added an additional 1%....Not that this useless piece of info changes anything, except that depending on where you live and shop, some pay more and some pay less - NH has NO sales tax. Does anyone know of other states without sales tax? People who live in contiguous states often travel to the no-sales-tax state to make major purchases...leaving their home state losing the opportunity to get that tax revenue.
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > bonbf3 said:
> ...


Thank you for saying that, but they really weren't. (Self disciplined, perhaps...as something from every check, no matter how little, went into savings...no nights out, no extravagances.) They knew people who ate out, saw shows, took vacations etc., but they didn't feel entitled. They knew that they alone were responsible for what they had and how to pay the bills. Most of my friends' families and those in our blue-collar neighborhood had the same work ethic and pride.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

these figures don't talk at all about what they mean. If the borrowing was for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, those were both wars started by the previous administration. The war debt is NOT figured in the budget, and these figures by themselves mean nothing. they need context.


bonbf3 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > Budget deficit as of today Goverment owes
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Mrs. Obama is a wonderful role model for all women and mothers. Her support for veteran's families is exemplary. Too bad your view of her is that she is uppity.


thumper5316 said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > I know Michelle O. was having a great time with her kids flying all over the world on our tax payer money. Shopping trips in Europe. She is just the worst.
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

But, I thought the poor are supposed to look to the rich as an example - so why shouldn't they "want"?How can they get rich and not pay their fair share of taxes if they take low paying jobs?


Lukelucy said:


> People here do not want to work for lower wages. They will go unemployed in order to avoid those jobs. Our country is not on the right track. Jobs are out there, but they are not desirable to Americans because of the lower wages. Americans want, want, want "things".


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Bonnie---I know what you're saying, but when you change a percent to a decimal, don't you move the decimal point two places to the left? 
5% is equal to .05 or 5/100, not 5 tenths. Help. Isn't that right?? Please forgive me for adding this in, but 5/10 equals 1/2, and I know that's not what you meant. And now that I've said that, I have to go back and reread what you wrote!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Yarnie,

You are right on. I try to tell people about Obama's spending and they don't believe it. Thank you!


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Yarnie,
> 
> You are right on. I try to tell people about Obama's spending and they don't believe it. Thank you!


Once again. Check out this Forbes article

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > I think part of the problem is mass media - because now we SEE how the "other half" lives. We know what some people have, and we want it, too. I think that's also why so many people around the world have turned to capitalism (even Communist countries - that was quite a shock) and more individual freedom. They saw it - and they wanted it. And that was good. Now, we seem to be "wanting it all." Maybe that's not so good.
> ...


Yes, I remember that.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Oh, alcameron, silly girl! You are once again letting facts get in the way of prejudice!


alcameron said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > Yarnie,
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Somehow it doesn't seem right that the poor pay more than the wealthy!


soloweygirl said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me put it another way.
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Economics--particularly on a world-wide scale--is an incredibly complex science, and I sometimes get the feeling that even the so-called experts don't understand it very well. When our domestic economy falters they seem at something at a loss and generally try one thing after another--raising interest rates, then lowering them, telling folks to pare down their credit card bills, then egging them on to buy more consumer goods, and yes sometimes even giving them the cash to do so.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

You are right about that!


susanmos2000 said:


> Economics--particularly on a world-wide scale--is an incredibly complex science, and I sometimes get the feeling that even the so-called experts don't understand it very well. When our domestic economy falters they seem at something at a loss and generally try one thing after another--raising interest rates, then lowering them, encouraging folks to pare down their credit card bills, encouraging them to buy more consumer goods, and yes sometimes even giving them the cash to do so.


----------



## Knitish (Feb 8, 2011)

Thank you Pardo. Why can people not have jobs for a living wage? Why do today $7.50/hour not rate as the 1960 hourly wage? By 1960 standards, today minimum wage should be $16.50. That is so the B$CEO's can keep all the money to themselves. Then they hide their money in Swiss and Cayman banks so it will not be taxed, meaning honest americans have to pay their share too! And there is always the cheap who want to not tip their servers or waiters who earn -$3.00/hour! And yes, our government does have to spend to pay for jets and the sound of freedom.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

This doesn't have to do with this topic, but it's a very moving video and interpretation of JFK's "ask not" speech. Very nice for President"s Day.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/18/50-years-later-a-reinterpretation-of-jfks-famous-words/


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Economics--particularly on a world-wide scale--is an incredibly complex science, and I sometimes get the feeling that even the so-called experts don't understand it very well. When our domestic economy falters they seem at something at a loss and generally try one thing after another--raising interest rates, then lowering them, telling folks to pare down their credit card bills, then egging them on to buy more consumer goods, and yes sometimes even giving them the cash to do so.


I agree. Our Executive and Legislative branches couldn't even come up with a budget! For four years! They sure don't understand it. Where are the experts?


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> But, I thought the poor are supposed to look to the rich as an example - so why shouldn't they "want"?How can they get rich and not pay their fair share of taxes if they take low paying jobs?
> 
> 
> Lukelucy said:
> ...


If being "rich" is their goal, envying the rich won't get them there. Well, if they won't take a job, how will they get rich? Unless they buy lottery tickets and win, they're not going to get rich on welfare. You gotta start somewhere...work hard...prove yourself, get promotions, avail yourself of better opportunities, get more education...I always thought that a successful person should be a role model for my kids and students, not their monetary achievements. Professional athletes and entertainers are wealthy; some are role models; many are a disgrace. We need role models who are worthy of emulation.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

I don't think it seems right that the top one percent pays 39 percent of the taxes. There is no relevance to your comment that the poor shouldn't pay more than the wealthy....unless you are suggesting that goods, food, merchandise etc., should be priced differently for various income strata. No bias there, is there? It seems to me that you are resentful that wealthy folks may have more choices and you'd like to pit a cap on them. Is that what you are suggesting? Your comments reek of class warfare rhetoric.
Remember, the rich already pay more taxes.



pardoquilts said:


> Somehow it doesn't seem right that the poor pay more than the wealthy!
> 
> 
> soloweygirl said:
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> NMknit said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Pardo. Why can people not have jobs for a living wage? Why do today $7.50/hour not rate as the 1960 hourly wage? By 1960 standards, today minimum wage should be $16.50. That is so the B$CEO's can keep all the money to themselves. Then they hide their money in Swiss and Cayman banks so it will not be taxed, meaning honest americans have to pay their share too! And there is always the cheap who want to not tip their servers or waiters who earn -$3.00/hour! And yes, our government does have to spend to pay for jets and the sound of freedom.
> ...


Those are the hourly wages I was paid in the 60's also. It would be interesting to know what they equate to today. What I understand is that it is harder for a person/ family to have the same standard of living today on an entry level salary as it was back then. Granted with inflation, everything seems to be disproportionately higher...but I'd like to know the comparison ...dollar for dollar if anyone has those facts.

For example, gas was less than a dollar a gallon...After housing, food, insurance, utilities, and transportation are paid for today we have so many more discretionary expenses that are considered a necessary part of our every day life....multiple cell phones with data plans, iphones, tablets, electronic games, cable TV, more than one car, credit cards, bigger homes, many more luxuries, fast food, expensive vacations, multiple tvs, all kinds of gadgets and gizmos, cable/satellite , pay per view for movies available on demand, a myriad of kitchen appliances, beauty products for exhorbitant prices, manicures, pedicures, massages, all level of self indulgence and instant gratification, to just name a few. I am sure KPers can add many more. When you consider just what I wrote, and that most people under 40 ( ?my arbitrary age) take these for granted as necessities, is it any wonder than even middle class folks are struggling and indebted?


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

momeee said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > NMknit said:
> ...


I read your list, and I so agree with your conclusion about what people take for granted and call a necessity. I do not understand this sense of entitlement. I fear so many people have the need to "keep up with the Jones" that what they consider to be a 'right' is really a choice that has financial consequences. An example is that one could buy a basic cell phone instead of a smart phone, that must have a data plan, texting, apps (that can cost money), games... if they need to make a call. One can live without facebook and twitter, or go to the library and catch up. All of that is nice, but having them is a choice


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

momeee said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > But, I thought the poor are supposed to look to the rich as an example - so why shouldn't they "want"?How can they get rich and not pay their fair share of taxes if they take low paying jobs?
> ...


Well said. I kept trying to say something along the same lines without sounding snarky but was struggling.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

momeee said:


> I don't think it seems right that the top one percent pays 39 percent of the taxes.


As someone from the lower-middle class tax bracket I too agree that it doesn't seem entirely fair for someone to lose 1/3 or more of their income to the IRS...but on the other hand, the well-to-do have the means to hire professional tax preparers, accountants, even attorneys to help them out when tax time rolls around.

I've been filing an annual 1040 for twenty-five years and know the drill--subtract line 25 from 46, add line 37 from Worksheet 84A, multiply the total on line 6 by 3...one slip of the pencil and you end up owing the IRS an extra couple of hundred dollars. Somehow the mistakes are always in their favor, never in yours. Whoever designs those forms is a master...what good is being in the 5% tax bracket if the whole system is engineered to ensure that you pay a whole lot more in the end?


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Any cash outlay that you have to make has an impact on what you have left to spend on other things. It does not have the same impact on what a millionaire has left to spend as it has on those who live below the poverty line. If you cannot comprehend that, I understand why the conservative Republicans have so much trouble understanding the rest of the issues that poor people have.


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Joensomma will not because she chooses not to.
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Joensomma will not because she chooses not to.
> ...


Joeysomma,

It has an impact on income, unless we're quibbling about the word income. If you are in possession of a lot of money, spending a little for anything - including tax - has little impact. If you are in possession of just a little money, spending a little for anything - including tax - can have a large impact. Do you agree with that? Is that logical?

I ask because I'm wondering if you're the KPer who has a background in accounting or explains a lot of math on here. If so, are we just disagreeing on the words like income, etc.? Or is my logic flawed? I like math but am no expert.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I believe that if you have more, you should give more. If you have more opportunities, you should give back to the community. If you don't have to work two jobs to pay for a college education, you should find some way to give others a hand up. Have you checked out the tax rates in most European coutries? The tax rates for our top money makers is much lower. If there is class warfare, I see it as war on the lower economic classes. The amount that the working poor have left for discretionary items, after they pay for the basics, is virtually nothing. Top wage earners do not have to figure out how to stretch those last few dollars at the end of a pay period.


momeee said:


> I don't think it seems right that the top one percent pays 39 percent of the taxes. There is no relevance to your comment that the poor shouldn't pay more than the wealthy....unless you are suggesting that goods, food, merchandise etc., should be priced differently for various income strata. No bias there, is there? It seems to me that you are resentful that wealthy folks may have more choices and you'd like to pit a cap on them. Is that what you are suggesting? Your comments reek of class warfare rhetoric.
> Remember, the rich already pay more taxes.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I see from your location, that you probably don't have regular access to the Chicago Tribune, but on April 15, every year, the Tribune reprints an hilarious cartoon done by Jeff McNelly, who has, I believe, passed on now. It is of the front page of a 1040 form, but it is all splotched, filled in with funny comments, and always makes me laugh. If you remember to check it out, I think it will lighten your mood a little as we file our taxes.


susanmos2000 said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it seems right that the top one percent pays 39 percent of the taxes.
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I think the Obamas are excellent role models. Mrs. Obama's father worked for the Post Office. President Obama's father virtually disappeared from his life, he was raised by a single mother. Each of them managed to go to top universities and law schools, and you can bet they didn't pay for it out of Daddy's checkbook. Nobody handed them anything on a silver platter.


momeee said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > But, I thought the poor are supposed to look to the rich as an example - so why shouldn't they "want"?How can they get rich and not pay their fair share of taxes if they take low paying jobs?
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> I see from your location, that you probably don't have regular access to the Chicago Tribune, but on April 15, every year, the Tribune reprints an hilarious cartoon done by Jeff McNelly, who has, I believe, passed on now. It is of the front page of a 1040 form, but it is all splotched, filled in with funny comments, and always makes me laugh. If you remember to check it out, I think it will lighten your mood a little as we file our taxes.
> 
> 
> susanmos2000 said:
> ...


Thanks, I'll have to check it out. Maybe it'll give me the courage the deal with the tax forms and W-2s waiting for me on the dining room table...

My husband is from Eastern Europe and has never filed a 1040 in his life...why should he when "I'm so good at it?" (his words not mine). I keep telling him he's missing out on a grand old American tradition but alas he's too smart to fall for that LOL


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Don't you misunderstand me. I fully understand the implications of being poor and living below the poverty line. What you seem to fail to grasp is that we cannot tax the rich to bring the poor into prosperity. You appear to assign blame to the repubs. The dems don't seem to understand that The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. Plenty of accusations to throw around that will NEVER solve the problem. Something to ponder: A famous Democratic president said during his state of the union speech The lessons of history  show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.

No of course that wasn't President Barack Obama, but in fact it was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his 1935 State of the Union address.



pardoquilts said:


> Any cash outlay that you have to make has an impact on what you have left to spend on other things. It does not have the same impact on what a millionaire has left to spend as it has on those who live below the poverty line. If you cannot comprehend that, I understand why the conservative Republicans have so much trouble understanding the rest of the issues that poor people have.
> 
> 
> joeysomma said:
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Tax rate in France is now at 75%....
If the govt. could figure out how to help the WORKING poor and force the slugs who WILL NOT work to take responsibility for themselves, there would be more money to raise everyones' boats without robbing the honest workers.


pardoquilts said:


> I believe that if you have more, you should give more. If you have more opportunities, you should give back to the community. If you don't have to work two jobs to pay for a college education, you should find some way to give others a hand up. Have you checked out the tax rates in most European coutries? The tax rates for our top money makers is much lower. If there is class warfare, I see it as war on the lower economic classes. The amount that the working poor have left for discretionary items, after they pay for the basics, is virtually nothing. Top wage earners do not have to figure out how to stretch those last few dollars at the end of a pay period.
> 
> 
> momeee said:
> ...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

One of the most insidious influences I believe gets us to spend, spend, spend are all the TV commercials that show "ordinary" people living in a better way than many of us ordinary people do. Whatever the particular product being advertised, we get a clear message that we're supposed to have all the things in the background of any given commercial. Advertisers don't have to blatantly tell us we need 17 pairs of new shoes, remodel out kitchens, buy certain clothing, etc. I'd call this subliminal advertising, but it seems more direct than that. No wonder people are have the amount of credit card debt they these days. Whatever happended to living within our own means?


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Momee, I don't think we disagree on this. However, the problems that the poor and working poor have are complex, and not solved by people telling folks to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Hard to do when you don't have any boots! Helping young children to learn things that they might get in different home situations, for example,(think Headstart) costs money, and the benefits are far down the road. But, I still think that government has the most resources to accomplish that goal. There are so many things that are needed, and the assumption by some people that all folks on welfare are lazy just ticks me off! I don't claim to have all the answers, but the condemnation of people who would like to be in a different place but don't even know where to begin really gets me down. Meanness and name calling doesn't get us anywhere, but that seems, sometimes, to be the going in position for some people (I'm not saying you do this - just a general statement). People who think they have all the answers really depress and frustrate me...ultimately we all have to hear each other before we can begin to solve the problems.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Pardo, I don't know if you've noticed but those that have more are just about the only ones that ARE giving. Are you saying that those that are earning money and paying the taxes are the only ones that were presented with opportunities? One thing for sure; they TOOK the opportunities that were presented to them. Your comments also reek of class warfare rhetoric.

My sons didn't have to work two jobs while they went to college. One went on the GI bill as a veteran and was working full time while he did. He presented his final project from an airfield serving as a Senior Master Sergeant in the 210th EIS in Afghanistan.

Another one earned multiple scholarships by working hard getting good grades and was a 7X state swimming champion.

Another one, by working hard, was awarded a ROTC scholarship and is now serving in the Army.

Your insinuation that they are less than feeling humans if they din't give others a leg up because they didn't work two jobs while going to school is rather presumptuous. What more would you have them give? I think they gave quite enough. What have those that you feel need the leg up sacrifice? What have they tried? What efforts have they expended?



pardoquilts said:


> I believe that if you have more, you should give more. If you have more opportunities, you should give back to the community. If you don't have to work two jobs to pay for a college education, you should find some way to give others a hand up. Have you checked out the tax rates in most European coutries? The tax rates for our top money makers is much lower. If there is class warfare, I see it as war on the lower economic classes. The amount that the working poor have left for discretionary items, after they pay for the basics, is virtually nothing. Top wage earners do not have to figure out how to stretch those last few dollars at the end of a pay period.
> 
> 
> momeee said:
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

He was not raised by a single mother. He was raised by his grandmother. Well, at least that's one of the stories circulating about him. Heaven only knows what the truth is about this guy.



pardoquilts said:


> I think the Obamas are excellent role models. Mrs. Obama's father worked for the Post Office. President Obama's father virtually disappeared from his life, he was raised by a single mother. Each of them managed to go to top universities and law schools, and you can bet they didn't pay for it out of Daddy's checkbook. Nobody handed them anything on a silver platter.
> 
> 
> momeee said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I understand the difference. What I'm now completely at a loss to understand is how you cannot see that there is a different impact on different incomes when people have to pay the same dollar amount of sales tax. If I have to spend $5 in sales tax, and I have $100 until the end of the month, that leaves me with $95. If I have to spend $5 in sales tax and I have $1,000 until the end of the month, that leaves me with $995. I know you are a retired math teacher and I'm not, but I believe that $995 is more than $95. The person with $995 has more money to get her to the end of the month than the person with only $95. The actual impact of the $5 sales tax on the person with less money until the end of the month is greater. So, I assume that you would prefer not to understand that so that you don't have to examine some of your other assumptions as well.


joeysomma said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > Joeysomma,
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> these figures don't talk at all about what they mean. If the borrowing was for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, those were both wars started by the previous administration. The war debt is NOT figured in the budget, and these figures by themselves mean nothing. they need context.
> 
> 
> bonbf3 said:
> ...


This does include Military spending, this is what has been spent on all programs by the goverment.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Soon after their son's birth, while Obama's father continued his education at the University of Hawaii, Ann Dunham took the infant to Seattle, Washington, where she took classes at the University of Washington from September 1961 to June 1962. She and her son lived in an apartment in the Capitol Hill neighborhood.[10] After graduating from the University of Hawaii with a B.A. in economics, Obama, Sr. left the state in June 1962, moving to Cambridge, Massachusetts for graduate study in economics at Harvard University that fall.[4][11][12][13]

Ann Dunham returned with her son to Honolulu and, in January 1963, resumed her undergraduate education at the University of Hawaii.[10] In January 1964, Dunham filed for divorce, which was not contested.[6] Barack Obama, Sr. later graduated from Harvard University with an A.M. in economics and in 1965 returned to Kenya.[11][12][14]

During her first year back at the University of Hawaii, Dunham met Lolo Soetoro.[15] He was one year into his American experience, after two semesters on the Manoa campus and a summer on the mainland at Northwestern and the University of Wisconsin, when he encountered Dunham, then an undergraduate interested in anthropology. A surveyor from Indonesia, he had come to Honolulu in September 1962 on an East-West Center grant to study at the University of Hawaii.[16] He earned a M.A. in geography in June 1964.

Dunham and Soetoro married on March 15, 1965, on Molokai. They returned to Honolulu to live with her son as a family.[17] After two one-year extensions of his J-1 visa, Soetoro returned to Indonesia on June 20, 1966.[18] Dunham and her son moved in with her parents at their house. She continued with her studies, earning a B.A. in anthropology in August 1967, while her son attended kindergarten in 19661967 at Noelani Elementary School
In mid-1971, Obama moved back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents and attend Punahou School starting in 5th grade.[31][32] In December 1971, the boy was visited for a month by his father, Barack Obama, Sr., from Kenya. It was the last time Obama would see his father. This was followed by his mother visiting her son and parents in Honolulu from late 1971 to January 1972.

Several months later, in August 1972, Dunham returned to Hawaii, bringing along the young Maya, Obama's half-sister. Dunham started graduate study in anthropology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Her parents provided support for her and the children.[33]

Obama's mother completed her coursework at the University of Hawaii for an M.A. in anthropology in December 1974.[34] After three years in Hawaii, she and Maya returned to Jakarta in 1975, where Dunham completed her contract with the Institute of Management Education and Development and started anthropological field work.[35] Obama chose to stay with his grandparents in Honolulu to continue his studies at Punahou School for his high school years.

This is fromWikipedia, but has been confirmed by many other sources. He was raised by a single mother, a married mother, and his grandparents. What is your point?


thumper5316 said:


> He was not raised by a single mother. He was raised by his grandmother. Well, at least that's one of the stories circulating about him. Heaven only knows what the truth is about this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > Yarnie,
> ...


I would suggest you go to the goverment site as I did and see what was really spent by each administration. I don't think the goverment would lie about the spending in this country.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Oh, alcameron, silly girl! You are once again letting facts get in the way of prejudice!
> 
> 
> alcameron said:
> ...


No once again she is looking to the media for unproven facts. Again I say do not look to the media, or the internet, watch c span check on goverment sites, not the media.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

momeee said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > NMknit said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Thumper, I am sure you are rightly proud of your family. I am proud of mine. I'm not sure which post you were responding to, but I have made several today which speak of the way I live my life, and the way I hope this country can learn to live. To me, living out of fear that someone will take something away from you, is not a good way to live. I get much more personal satisfaction by sharing as much as I can. You can call that class warfare, but, even though I am not a Christian, I think that is what Jesus taught. Helping the least of us, not turning away from those society looks down on, sharing...all that good stuff.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

momeee said:


> Tax rate in France is now at 75%....
> If the govt. could figure out how to help the WORKING poor and force the slugs who WILL NOT work to take responsibility for themselves, there would be more money to raise everyones' boats without robbing the honest workers.
> 
> 
> ...


Also must mention that the business in France are now moving out of the country because of the taxes being so high. So now they are losing more. Their goverment is now thinking of lower the tax rates to business. It did not work, and their ecomony is now suffering.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > Joeysomma,
> ...


Hi, Joeysomma:

I thought that was you. So many posts get confusing. 
I think it IS mathematically possible for a sales tax to take a larger proportion of available money from a poor person than a rich person. I think it's the word income that's causing our disagreement. I think you're saying that sales tax is not tied to income. I agree.

Sales tax is not related to income, and that's why it impacts some more than others. Sales tax is a fixed percentage of the item's cost, no matter how much money the buyer has. Sales tax is paid from a person's income, and there is the relationship. It takes a higher percentage of a low income than it does a high income.

Sales tax can be examined in two ways. 
1. Amount charged to buyer - this is a percentage of the cost of the item purchased. More expensive items have the same percentage of item cost, but a higher price to be paid.
2. Amount paid by buyer - this CAN be calculated in relationship to the person's income. The amount paid is STILL 5% of the purchased item cost, but that same amount paid is also a percentage of the buyer's income. 
That amount paid will be a larger percentage of a $1000 income than of a $10,000 income.

If I put this in easy terms with small figures, maybe I can understand. 
Two babysitters. 
Sitter one works on Friday and gets $50.
Sitter two works on Friday and gets $100.

Sitter one buys an item and pays $5 tax on it.
Sitter two buys the same item and pays $5 tax on it.

Sitter one has spent one-tenth of her pay on the item.
Sitter two has spent one-twentieth of her pay on the item.

Sitter one has spent twice as large a percentage of her pay as sitter two.

Sales tax is not related to income, and that's why it impacts some more than others. It is a fixed amount - and takes a higher percentage of a low income than it does a high income.

Phew! My brain hurts!


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > Joeysomma,
> ...


That is my point completely. The $5 sales tax probably means a meal for a family with little income. That same $5 sales tax means, perhaps, one less trip to Starbucks for the $1000 person.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


So you would agree that sales tax is more detrimental to people with low incomes? That's point pardo was trying to make over the last 3 pages.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

But the conversation began with my saying that sales taxes have a greater impact on the poor than they do on the rich. I can't make it any plainer than that.


joeysomma said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > these figures don't talk at all about what they mean. If the borrowing was for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, those were both wars started by the previous administration. The war debt is NOT figured in the budget, and these figures by themselves mean nothing. they need context.
> ...


YarnLady, will you please post the link you used? I can't find the info.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Well, some people I know who have worked hard but still today do not have much live it up on charge cards then file for bankruptcy! Some have asked why my DH and I don't do the same thing.

Isn't that stealing by charging things that you know you are "never" going to try to pay? It is in my book, but guess others see it differently. We don't go out to eat or a movie very often, but when we do, we have the cash!

There is a song don't remember name that says:

The rich get richer and the poor get babies!


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Because the poor can't afford birth control pills!


Janeway said:


> Well, some people I know who have worked hard but still today do not have much live it up on charge cards then file for bankruptcy! Some have asked why my DH and I don't do the same thing.
> 
> Isn't that stealing by charging things that you know you are "never" going to try to pay? It is in my book, but guess others see it differently. We don't go out to eat or a movie very often, but when we do, we have the cash!
> 
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I use my credit card all the time and pay the bill every month. You can't assume that everyone who uses credit will file bankruptcy. I use my card for convenience.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Goverment. org, then goverment accountability. It is the goverement site for the spending in this country. If even will show you how much is spent on each program by the goverment. Hope this helps


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

The line ends at "the rich get richer," but I like the explanation that the poor can't get birth control pills.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Goverment. org, then goverment accountability. It is the goverement site for the spending in this country. If even will show you how much is spent on each program by the goverment. Hope this helps


But I can't find the comparisons and I don't understand if those figures were of budget items agreed on by Congress. Oh, well, I'll look again later. I now have a change-in-the-weather headache!!


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

alcameron said:


> I use my credit card all the time and pay the bill every month. You can't assume that everyone who uses credit will file bankruptcy. I use my card for convenience.


No but ten to one you pay off your amount owed. There are many who do not and that cost is pass on to us who do . 
I have seen people that have 6 or more credit cards. Why would one need that many except to over do it. I have known of a person who charged to the limit and then declared bankruptic, credit cleared and started on another card sent to her in the mail. It's crazy.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Must tell what happening here in Wis. So much for caring about women and their care.

Goverment because of taxes cut are closing three clinics can't remember the name egads hate that oh famliy planning clinic's. can't spell it either. Before blaming on Repb. you must know that this was on last last over the cliff plan which Obama did not veto. 
March is coming and we will see what will happen to us again.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Janeway said:


> Well, some people I know who have worked hard but still today do not have much live it up on charge cards then file for bankruptcy! Some have asked why my DH and I don't do the same thing.
> 
> Isn't that stealing by charging things that you know you are "never" going to try to pay? It is in my book, but guess others see it differently. We don't go out to eat or a movie very often, but when we do, we have the cash!
> 
> ...


Yes, of course it's wrong to charge things with no intention of ever paying the bill...but it's usury on the part of the credit card companies to charge 20% interest (or more).


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > Well, some people I know who have worked hard but still today do not have much live it up on charge cards then file for bankruptcy! Some have asked why my DH and I don't do the same thing.
> ...


You are right on!


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

I would agree, but the goverment step in to stop them from stopping the people who did pay their cards off from charging them more.

The one that realy goated me is the lady I knew and who macks out her card two time and her mom bail her out only to have her do it again. She then called the card company, and complain about the high rate they were charging her, and they brought her rate down to 13%. How is that for a game play. But who do you think is paying for that, not her just you and I and others who pay off their charge cards.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > I know Michelle O. was having a great time with her kids flying all over the world on our tax payer money. Shopping trips in Europe. She is just the worst.
> ...


Full ofhate araen't you? Why?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Yarnie,
> 
> You are right on. I try to tell people about Obama's spending and they don't believe it. Thank you!


I don't believe you eiher.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

I don't live in fear. However, I was taught that theft was wrong. Just because someone may 'want' something it doesn't give them the right to just out-right take it from me just for the expressed purpose of giving it to someone else. If I saw them hungry, I would feed them; if I saw that they needed clothes, I would clothe them and I've even sheltered a few. But just because they may want a cell phone, a computer, a TV, or other luxuries that doesn't give them the right to take it. That's greed, envy, and stealing. And in your eyes I'm the one in the wrong? Amazing.



pardoquilts said:


> Thumper, I am sure you are rightly proud of your family. I am proud of mine. I'm not sure which post you were responding to, but I have made several today which speak of the way I live my life, and the way I hope this country can learn to live. To me, living out of fear that someone will take something away from you, is not a good way to live. I get much more personal satisfaction by sharing as much as I can. You can call that class warfare, but, even though I am not a Christian, I think that is what Jesus taught. Helping the least of us, not turning away from those society looks down on, sharing...all that good stuff.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

I do not believe that if you have more you should give more. Rubbish. Everyone should do as they please and not have the government tell them where there money should go.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

alcameron said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > bonbf3 said:
> ...


It certainly seems that way. Just as all the higher prices we're seeing at the gas pump and the grocery store hurt low-income people more.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Everybody get their own opinion. I just know how I need to live.


Lukelucy said:


> I do not believe that if you have more you should give more. Rubbish. Everyone should do as they please and not have the government tell them where there money should go.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

To me it is all the "gimme, gimme, gimme" philosophy that has eroded our society.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I do not believe that if you have more you should give more. Rubbish. Everyone should do as they please and not have the government tell them where there money should go.


The government decides where our tax dollars go and we have to abide by it. I go back to the two wars started in the Bush administration. If I am opposed to going to war, particularly if they were started by lies, can I withhold the tax that I owe? I think not. I guess I could go to jail.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

The poor people I know don't have a whole lot of luxuries, and most of them don't want to steal a thing from you.


thumper5316 said:


> I don't live in fear. However, I was taught that theft was wrong. Just because someone may 'want' something it doesn't give them the right to just out-right take it from me just for the expressed purpose of giving it to someone else. If I saw them hungry, I would feed them; if I saw that they needed clothes, I would clothe them and I've even sheltered a few. But just because they may want a cell phone, a computer, a TV, or other luxuries that doesn't give them the right to take it. That's greed, envy, and stealing. And in your eyes I'm the one in the wrong? Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Thumper, I totally agree with you!


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> The poor people I know don't have a whole lot of luxuries, and most of them don't want to steal a thing from you.
> 
> 
> thumper5316 said:
> ...


If you look at taxes as someone stealing something from you, you'll never be happy.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Can't help thinking that Obama is stealing from me and then goes off to have fun with Tiger...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Can't help thinking that Obama is stealing from me and then goes off to have fun with Tiger...


Paranoia? Blame your republican House. They have a say inHow tax dollars are spent. This doesn't even sound rational.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I can't say this enough...The President has averaged three weeks of vacation per year. I want my President to have a little off time so he is ready to deal with the huge responsibility he has. President Obama didn't exactly come up with the notion of taxes, and he doesn't make the laws - the Congress does. Alcameron is right - interesting notion that taxses are stealing from you. How do you think things that everyone, you included, uses get paid for?


Lukelucy said:


> Can't help thinking that Obama is stealing from me and then goes off to have fun with Tiger...


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Don't understand what you mean by "uses get paid for"???


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Don't understand what you mean by "uses get paid for"???


How do you think that everything you use gets paid for? Roads, fire depts, police, education, clean air and water, military, etc. These things are paid for by citizens paying their taxes. Responsible, patriotic citizens pay their taxes.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

In my opinion, Obama is going far above all that you have listed. Supplying cell phones to people is ridiculous.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> In my opinion, Obama is going far above all that you have listed. Supplying cell phones to people is ridiculous.


Do you believe that a phone is a luxury?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Yes, I do. A cell phone, that is.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Yes, I do. A cell phone, that is.


Many people have no land line, just a cell phone. Is it still a luxury?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

And who investigates who has a land line and who doesn't? If a person cannot afford a phone they should not have one.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

You get to a point at which you have to hire hordes of employees to track all this stuff down, or just let it go. You have to trust that most people do the right thing.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Sorry. A lot of people take advantage of the government without guilt.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Sorry. A lot of people take advantage of the government without guilt.


Sure, and government agencies top the list. Remember the military's $640 toilet seats?


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I believe people with children should have a phone, for many reasons for safety and because schools use phones, as well as email, to communicate with parents; how do you get a call for job interview if you don't have a phone? There are virtually no pay phones any longer. Just how isolated should people be? Furthermore, President Obama did NOT start the free phone idea. Goerge W. Bush did. The government pays for 250 free minutes and gets the cell phone into the hands of those who are in need.


Lukelucy said:


> And who investigates who has a land line and who doesn't? If a person cannot afford a phone they should not have one.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

The $640 toilet seats were not foist off on the government by people on welfare! They were created by big business!


susanmos2000 said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry. A lot of people take advantage of the government without guilt.
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> The $640 toilet seats were not foist off on the government by people on welfare! They were created by big business!
> 
> 
> susanmos2000 said:
> ...


The military (and other government agencies) spend obscene amounts of taxpayer money on things like toilet seats, hammers ($435), and coffeemakers ($7600). It's hypocritical to demand that tax-paying citizens (and everyone pays taxes in one form or another) watch every nickle and dime and do without things like telephones but turn a blind eye to the government's grotesque waste of OUR money.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

I no longer have that trust. They don't deserve it either.

I do believe that the government should levy taxes for roads, bridges, the things that keep society as a whole moving. Anything else should be up to the benevolence of the giver.



alcameron said:


> You get to a point at which you have to hire hordes of employees to track all this stuff down, or just let it go. You have to trust that most people do the right thing.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

momeee said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > But, I thought the poor are supposed to look to the rich as an example - so why shouldn't they "want"?How can they get rich and not pay their fair share of taxes if they take low paying jobs?
> ...


Absolutely. Role models, in celebrity and sports arenas, are indeed becoming harder and harder to find.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

I'll put my 2 cents in...when poor abused women were given a cell phone for safety, with it being programmed or set so it was for emergency use, not for calling for social reasons, yes, it think it was a good idea. But to allow the process to be so poorly managed that many have multiple cell/smart phones with data plans, or unlimited calling, unlimited minutes is an expensive luxury. It is a big abuse of what started out with a valid purpose. I don't think a cell phone is a necessity... if you can't afford it you shouldn't have it. Much of the gimme mentality today is born of why work for something if I can get it free....I make choices regarding what i am able to spend my $$ on and some things I don't have - like a smart phone as the data plan is just too expensive.


alcameron said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, Obama is going far above all that you have listed. Supplying cell phones to people is ridiculous.
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

If a person cannot afford a phone it's not my responsibility to provide one for them be it land line or cell.

I don't care who started the program. It is not up to the government to provide one.



pardoquilts said:


> I believe people with children should have a phone, for many reasons for safety and because schools use phones, as well as email, to communicate with parents; how do you get a call for job interview if you don't have a phone? There are virtually no pay phones any longer. Just how isolated should people be? Furthermore, President Obama did NOT start the free phone idea. Goerge W. Bush did. The government pays for 250 free minutes and gets the cell phone into the hands of those who are in need.
> 
> 
> Lukelucy said:
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Yeah, I remember the $400 hammers and the $600 toilet seats. That was in the early'80's.



susanmos2000 said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry. A lot of people take advantage of the government without guilt.
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, Obama is going far above all that you have listed. Supplying cell phones to people is ridiculous.
> ...


Absolutely.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I do. A cell phone, that is.
> ...


If they can't personally afford it, absolutely.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> If a person cannot afford a phone it's not my responsibility to provide one for them be it land line or cell.
> 
> I don't care who started the program. It is not up to the government to provide one.
> 
> ...


Do you ever wonder what our society would be like if we didn't have programs for the poor?? I think you'd be complaining a little louder.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I guess I'm living in luxury. We have a phone.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

alcameron said:


> I guess I'm living in luxury. We have a phone.


No, you are living within your personal means.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

alcameron said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I do. A cell phone, that is.
> ...


Again, a choice. Land line is much cheaper. So if they choose to have a more expensive cell phone, then they must choose something to eliminate in their budget.

It is what it is


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> I believe that if you have more, you should give more. If you have more opportunities, you should give back to the community. If you don't have to work two jobs to pay for a college education, you should find some way to give others a hand up. Have you checked out the tax rates in most European coutries? The tax rates for our top money makers is much lower. If there is class warfare, I see it as war on the lower economic classes. The amount that the working poor have left for discretionary items, after they pay for the basics, is virtually nothing. Top wage earners do not have to figure out how to stretch those last few dollars at the end of a pay period.
> 
> A majority of current top earners did have to do just that. They went through what you described and paid their dues, so to speak. They have gotten to a place where they can buy something just because they want it and for no other reason. They have earned that behavior. Others demanding that they constantly pay more because they want what he has reeks of greed and envy. There is a class system in America. We also have the ability to move up through the classes in America. The term "upward mobility" comes to mind. The best example to prove that point is the current POTUS. Many people in other countries are not so fortunate.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

It is a matter of learning to prioritize. We cannot have everything we want...
If a phone is a life-saving necessity, put a time limit on how long it will be free. Then it gets shut off. 
We cannot fix everyone, or give all the poor everything they think they need. I don't know how to weed out the cheaters, but I know it needs to be done. Are the cheaters being called to task for their abusing the system and denying the deserving what they would have been given? Something has to give to get people to take personal responsibility for their lives.



off2knit said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Lukelucy said:
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that if you have more, you should give more. If you have more opportunities, you should give back to the community. If you don't have to work two jobs to pay for a college education, you should find some way to give others a hand up. Have you checked out the tax rates in most European coutries? The tax rates for our top money makers is much lower. If there is class warfare, I see it as war on the lower economic classes. The amount that the working poor have left for discretionary items, after they pay for the basics, is virtually nothing. Top wage earners do not have to figure out how to stretch those last few dollars at the end of a pay period.
> ...


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

alcameron said:


> I use my credit card all the time and pay the bill every month. You can't assume that everyone who uses credit will file bankruptcy. I use my card for convenience.


Janeway is not presuming that at all. She stated people she knows have done this.

I, too, use a credit card and pay it in full each month. No more debt for this girl.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

alcameron said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > If a person cannot afford a phone it's not my responsibility to provide one for them be it land line or cell.
> ...


Not hard to imagine...just look at many of the children in Africa, parts of Eastern Europe, North Korea etc etc

What blows my mind about what I'm reading is that so many posters seem not to give rap about the poor and what happens to them. Over and over again people are saying that they need to take care of themselves, "it's not my problem" and so on and so on.

Well, 22% of American children live in poverty. Does your indifference toward their so-called lazy shiftless parents extend to them as well? Do you really not care if they are unable to attend school, get a decent meal or two every day, or have adequate winter clothing? Do you really want to see the streets of Austin or San Francisco or Denver lined with children who have to beg for their food?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

alcameron said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > The poor people I know don't have a whole lot of luxuries, and most of them don't want to steal a thing from you.
> ...


It's the additional taxes the gov't wants to place on the wealthy that is stealing. About the singling out of just one part of the population to pay additional taxes. About this portion of the population "not paying their fair share" of taxes, when they pay more than others to begin with. The gov't can't even declare what that fair share is. Mind boggling to say the least.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> I can't say this enough...The President has averaged three weeks of vacation per year. I want my President to have a little off time so he is ready to deal with the huge responsibility he has. President Obama didn't exactly come up with the notion of taxes, and he doesn't make the laws - the Congress does. Alcameron is right - interesting notion that taxses are stealing from you. How do you think things that everyone, you included, uses get paid for?
> 
> 
> Lukelucy said:
> ...


I want my President to stay in the oval office during a crisis and not fly off just to campaign. I want him to accept responsibility, not blame others. I don't want him flying all over the country giving speeches when the speeches can be done from the WH via satellite.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > thumper5316 said:
> ...


WWWWEEEEELLLLLLLL Let's blame the former administration, and that would be Obama

More people on food stamps, higher gas prices, higher inflation (especially groceries), higher taxes, more government regulations, less religious freedom, higher unemployment, higher underemployment, more foreclosures, more bankruptcies, bankrupt Post Office......

Oh but way more money for Selendra, green bankrupted companies, shovel ready jobs, FREE health care.....

I care for the children, just more that their parents would have a job to take care of them

Side note, did you ever notice that the children that you mentioned were living in a dictatorship or under a repressive government or a repressive religious leaders? Wonder if there is a cause and effect going on?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > thumper5316 said:
> ...


Getting past the melodrama... The first responsibility to these children should come from their so called lazy shiftless parents. After all, they are the ones that produced them. They are the ones that are making their children the responsibility of others. They attend school where they do receive meals every day and some even take home food for the weekends. Many private groups, churches, etc., have drives to gather clothing for the children. It is a sad fact that many children live in poverty, I doubt anyone here wants to have this for the children.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I can't say this enough...The President has averaged three weeks of vacation per year. I want my President to have a little off time so he is ready to deal with the huge responsibility he has. President Obama didn't exactly come up with the notion of taxes, and he doesn't make the laws - the Congress does. Alcameron is right - interesting notion that taxses are stealing from you. How do you think things that everyone, you included, uses get paid for?
> ...


Just like Bush?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


Nobody wants our children to live in poverty, but nobody wants to support them.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

$83,679 vs. $51,986. Who Deserves a Raise?

Congressman Cantor Opposes Across the Board Federal Civilian Pay Raise



Did you know that in 2010 the average salary for a federal civilian employee was $83,679? At the same time, the average private sector salary was $51,986. When you add benefits to the equation, total compensation packages for federal employees stood at $126,141 compared to $62,757. 1 

And now, President Obama has given all of these federal civilian employees a pay raise. Congressman Eric Cantor believes thats just wrong. Last week, the House voted to overturn President Obamas executive order which gave the entire civilian federal workforce  including the Vice President and Cabinet Secretaries  an across-the-board pay hike, said Congressman Cantor. Federal workers already make 16% more than those in the private sector. Even during the current federal pay freeze, the average federal salary increased by more than $3,000. Hardworking taxpayers and families struggling to get by shouldnt have to bear an additional $11 billion in new government spending.

$51,986 = Average Private Sector Salary (2010)

$83,679 = Average Federal Civilian Employee Salary (2010)

On Friday, Congressman Cantor voted to stop this automatic pay raise for federal employees by voting in favor of H.R. 273, Overturning the Presidents Federal Pay Hike. This bill would stop the federal employee pay raise for federal civilian employees, including raises scheduled for the President, Vice President and Members of Congress.

Over the last decade, the average federal salary has increased by 62 percent  from $51,518 to $83,679. At a time when were worried about the need to get government spending under control, the last thing we need is an across the board pay raise  especially when it isnt even based on merit.

Congressman Cantor concluded, The Presidents pay hike is extremely reckless in the face of sequestration. The Administration should be looking for ways to reduce spending not increase it. Putting our country on a fiscally sustainable path should not only be a shared goal, it is a responsibility. Its time to work together and get serious about solving our spending problem.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

alcameron said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > susanmos2000 said:
> ...


Especially their own parents. Why is that?


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

alcameron said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


No, not like Bush. Bush was at least capable of talking to the citizens from the White House. obama has to fly around, just as if he were still campaigning.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

thumper5316 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > soloweygirl said:
> ...


Good question Thumper.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

In my opinion, it is pitiful that the government supplies phones for any reason. What is this country coming to when people think they are entitled to phones for any reason. Our country is full of spoiled, entitled people who think they should be given one. 

My parents could not afford a lock on their door early in their marriage. They used a tool to "lock" the door until they could afford one.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

alcameron said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > susanmos2000 said:
> ...


No contraceeption, no abortion, however starving to death is the way to go.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > soloweygirl said:
> ...


Easy. Don't have sex if you don't want or can't afford the potential consequences. God forbid that people have to face consequences for their behaviors.

Oh, the inhumanity of having to exert self control!


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Rocky says: No contraception (fixed the spelling), no abortion, however starving to death is the way to go.

Who is starving whom? Why are they starving? Has someone stolen their food? Isn't Obama giving away enough food stamps to feed a small nation? More people on food stamps, therefore more people have funds for food, therefore they are eating.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Thank youl They are the last ones in this country who should get a raise. In fact, their paychecks should be held until they ALL can agree on and pass a workable budget.



off2knit said:


> $83,679 vs. $51,986. Who Deserves a Raise?
> 
> Congressman Cantor Opposes Across the Board Federal Civilian Pay Raise
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

If you can't raise them, don't have them. If the govt. has to care for them for other than two(?) years, let them be adopted by folks who can provide a proper home.


soloweygirl said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

the ones bearing food stamps that I see at my grocery store on the first of the month sure don't look like they've been starving! Oh, don't tell me they are forced to eat all that high calorie fast food!


off2knit said:


> Rocky says: No contraception (fixed the spelling), no abortion, however starving to death is the way to go.
> 
> Who is starving whom? Why are they starving? Has someone stolen their food? Isn't Obama giving away enough food stamps to feed a small nation? More people on food stamps, therefore more people have funds for food, therefore they are eating.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


So you punish children for the carelessness of their parents by denying them food, clothing, and education? Anti-abortionists argue over and over again that the babies conceived through rape are blameless for their existence, the children of the poor deserve the same care and respect.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

No, children shouldn't be punished...but parents shouldn't be rewarded and enabled. One 'accident', possibly two, after than enough is enough!


susanmos2000 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


Give them to responsible people to raise.

Don't play the rape card. Do you even know the percentage of pregnancies that result from rape? It's a minuscule blip in the number of abortions that are performed yearly. But sure, if those are the only ones allowed great!


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Does it occur to you that some folks would like to have the President come to their city, as he did in Chicago, to let people know that he is aware of what is going on and that he cares about it. If he never left Washington, you would be accusing him of staying isolated in the White House.


soloweygirl said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I can't say this enough...The President has averaged three weeks of vacation per year. I want my President to have a little off time so he is ready to deal with the huge responsibility he has. President Obama didn't exactly come up with the notion of taxes, and he doesn't make the laws - the Congress does. Alcameron is right - interesting notion that taxses are stealing from you. How do you think things that everyone, you included, uses get paid for?
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

momeee said:


> No, children shouldn't be punished...but parents shouldn't be rewarded and enabled. One 'accident', possibly two, after than enough is enough!


(Wow, these quotes-within-quotes are taking over the screen, let me try to eliminate some)

But what's an appropriate punishment after the second accident? Cut off all government support? The child will suffer, without a doubt.

Remove them from their parents' home? (as one site member suggested) Besides the trauma inherent in removing older children from their parents' custody, foster care is expensive, far more so than welfare. According to the AFDC it costs $2499 in welfare payments to support a child and $21902 when he or she enters the foster-care system.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I am shocked to see people on this site talk about giving someone's children to someone else to raise! First of all, many children who live in poverty are being raised by people other than their own parents - for whatever reason. The notion that you should just rip these children from their parents and "give" them to someone else is heartless, at best! We would be much better served by putting programs in place that help parents learn how to be better parents, teach them about birth control. But, that costs money. Oh, and we sure don't want to fund sex education which teaches about birth control, either. The focus on abstinance is flying in the face of reality. Just don't have sex? What world are you living in?


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> I am shocked to see people on this site talk about giving someone's children to someone else to raise! First of all, many children who live in poverty are being raised by people other than their own parents - for whatever reason. The notion that you should just rip these children from their parents and "give" them to someone else is heartless, at best! We would be much better served by putting programs in place that help parents learn how to be better parents, teach them about birth control. But, that costs money. Oh, and we sure don't want to fund sex education which teaches about birth control, either. The focus on abstinance is flying in the face of reality. Just don't have sex? What world are you living in?


I live not in hiding, but in the Commonwealth of Virginia

Sex ed starts in grade school, good grief they put condoms on bananas in high school. Isn't that what all the funding for Planned Parenthood was for? Guess PP is as effective as Head Start


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

The diet that people on food stamps can afford, plus the fact that they often live in "food deserts" where the only options for shopping are high cost, and the access to fresh food is very limited do contribute to a huge obesity problem.


momeee said:


> the ones bearing food stamps that I see at my grocery store on the first of the month sure don't look like they've been starving! Oh, don't tell me they are forced to eat all that high calorie fast food!
> 
> 
> off2knit said:
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> I am shocked to see people on this site talk about giving someone's children to someone else to raise! First of all, many children who live in poverty are being raised by people other than their own parents - for whatever reason. The notion that you should just rip these children from their parents and "give" them to someone else is heartless, at best! We would be much better served by putting programs in place that help parents learn how to be better parents, teach them about birth control. But, that costs money. Oh, and we sure don't want to fund sex education which teaches about birth control, either. The focus on abstinance is flying in the face of reality. Just don't have sex? What world are you living in?


Actually I think the idea of children growing up in grinding poverty kind of intrigues people--hence the popularity of like The Waltons and Little House On the Prairie. You can be as poverty-stricken as you like, suffer as much as you want and no one seems to have a problem with it--but ask the government for assistance and zowie, suddenly you're an unfit parent.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Unless they've actually lived there


susanmos2000 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I am shocked to see people on this site talk about giving someone's children to someone else to raise! First of all, many children who live in poverty are being raised by people other than their own parents - for whatever reason. The notion that you should just rip these children from their parents and "give" them to someone else is heartless, at best! We would be much better served by putting programs in place that help parents learn how to be better parents, teach them about birth control. But, that costs money. Oh, and we sure don't want to fund sex education which teaches about birth control, either. The focus on abstinance is flying in the face of reality. Just don't have sex? What world are you living in?
> ...


Yes, it intrigues them until they've actually lived there!


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> I am shocked to see people on this site talk about giving someone's children to someone else to raise! First of all, many children who live in poverty are being raised by people other than their own parents - for whatever reason. The notion that you should just rip these children from their parents and "give" them to someone else is heartless, at best! We would be much better served by putting programs in place that help parents learn how to be better parents, teach them about birth control. But, that costs money. Oh, and we sure don't want to fund sex education which teaches about birth control, either. The focus on abstinance is flying in the face of reality. Just don't have sex? What world are you living in?


So, your solution is to just throw up your hands, open up everyone's wallets and hand out money to anyone regardless of their behaviors because we can't expect anyone to behave responsibly and if we do have expectations we are mean. Oh, and they can have whatever they want. Got it.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

It is preferable to help people learn to do better than to take their children away from then and be incredibly judgmental about their behavior without knowing circumstances.


thumper5316 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I am shocked to see people on this site talk about giving someone's children to someone else to raise! First of all, many children who live in poverty are being raised by people other than their own parents - for whatever reason. The notion that you should just rip these children from their parents and "give" them to someone else is heartless, at best! We would be much better served by putting programs in place that help parents learn how to be better parents, teach them about birth control. But, that costs money. Oh, and we sure don't want to fund sex education which teaches about birth control, either. The focus on abstinance is flying in the face of reality. Just don't have sex? What world are you living in?
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I am shocked to see people on this site talk about giving someone's children to someone else to raise! First of all, many children who live in poverty are being raised by people other than their own parents - for whatever reason. The notion that you should just rip these children from their parents and "give" them to someone else is heartless, at best! We would be much better served by putting programs in place that help parents learn how to be better parents, teach them about birth control. But, that costs money. Oh, and we sure don't want to fund sex education which teaches about birth control, either. The focus on abstinance is flying in the face of reality. Just don't have sex? What world are you living in?
> ...


No, I don't believe that's what Pardo meant at all. Childhood poverty (which so often leads to adult poverty) is a complicated issue, and there are no easy fixes. Better education, better nutrition, adequate job training would probably be good areas in which to start--vindictively cutting off all funding after the first/second/third "accident" is not.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


So, again, you have no solution other than to tell people they are mean when they get totally fed up supporting, over and over and over again, people that continue to have "accidents" (I've never known any woman to fall over on her back naked and with her legs apart as being an 'accident'). When do the repercussions fall on them rather than us all the time?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I am shocked to see people on this site talk about giving someone's children to someone else to raise! First of all, many children who live in poverty are being raised by people other than their own parents - for whatever reason. The notion that you should just rip these children from their parents and "give" them to someone else is heartless, at best! We would be much better served by putting programs in place that help parents learn how to be better parents, teach them about birth control. But, that costs money. Oh, and we sure don't want to fund sex education which teaches about birth control, either. The focus on abstinance is flying in the face of reality. Just don't have sex? What world are you living in?
> ...


The Waltons took place during the depression. Little House on the Prairie took place as the west was being populated and growing, where families had to do everything from scratch. Useless comparison.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I guess some of you would like the poor and irresponsible to be sterilized so there won't be children to support. But who would pay for that? Of course there's always contraception and abortion. But wait---who'll pay for that? Just say "no" doesn't work.
News flash: the children are already here. Shall we let them suffer? From your words, some of you sound so very hateful. Hate Obama, hate Michelle, hate the kids, hate the democrats, hate poor people, hate the government, hate the congress, hate taxes. And the list goes on . . . . .


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

alcameron said:


> I guess some of you would like the poor and irresponsible to be sterilized so there won't be children to support. But who would pay for that? Of course there's always contraception and abortion. But wait---who'll pay for that? Just say "no" doesn't work.
> News flash: the children are already here. Shall we let them suffer? From your words, some of you sound so very hateful. Hate Obama, hate Michelle, hate the kids, hate the democrats, hate poor people, hate the government, hate the congress, hate taxes. And the list goes on . . . . .


No, I don't hate. I am just very frustrated and am totally disgusted with the direction our country and a large percentage of its citizens are heading. I feel like an enabler that has no choice but to continue to enable.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > soloweygirl said:
> ...


Are you kidding? Bush was capable of talking from the White House? He was barely able to complete a correct sentence.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > I guess some of you would like the poor and irresponsible to be sterilized so there won't be children to support. But who would pay for that? Of course there's always contraception and abortion. But wait---who'll pay for that? Just say "no" doesn't work.
> ...


I'm glad to hear you don't hate. Look back at what you've written and tell that to us again.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> I am shocked to see people on this site talk about giving someone's children to someone else to raise! First of all, many children who live in poverty are being raised by people other than their own parents - for whatever reason. The notion that you should just rip these children from their parents and "give" them to someone else is heartless, at best! We would be much better served by putting programs in place that help parents learn how to be better parents, teach them about birth control. But, that costs money. Oh, and we sure don't want to fund sex education which teaches about birth control, either. The focus on abstinance is flying in the face of reality. Just don't have sex? What world are you living in?


Well my parents taught me that you "do not" have sex until you are married! There were three girls on my family, but not one of us were pregnant nor had sex before marriage.

What is wrong with those rules today? Why does everyone think they should do whatever they want then the tax payers must pay for their sex when a baby is born out of wedlock.

I live an Earth! Where is your planet?


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

alcameron said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


Got me on that one. Points awarded.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

alcameron said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


I reiterate, I am frustrated and disgusted. Neither adjective is defined with the word hate.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I don't know the best solutions for dealing with poverty, but I do believe it has to be up to the government to intervene. There are no easy answers. I do believe we have to help people to get out of poverty through education and job training. They need food, childcare, rent money to be able to exist while they are trying to better themselves. I think it's very difficult to get out of the poverty cycle, especially when people have been there for a generation. We have to believe that there are many who succeed even though many are left behind for one reason or another. i think that our government has to help people break that cycle. It's the only way.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > thumper5316 said:
> ...


I believe you, but it comes across to me as hate. I certainly can't give out advice, but I would say that we need to make an effort to look at some of the good things that happen in life. That's not always easy when we have our own personal illness, tragedy, or issues to deal with.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

I also share thumper's frustration. I would NEVER want a child to be hurt, deprived, hungry, abused,neglected...or have any thing unpleasant happen to him. Unfortunately all these nasties happen - and more. Our entire system is broken. Despite the efforts of the schools, government, charities, and some religious organizations, kids suffer when the parent(s) cannot or do not adequately care for them. Yes, it is a known fact that some continue to have children in order to add to their entitlements (and I do think that needs to be discouraged, stopped, or prevented as a first step).Bringing more children into a family that can not adequately care for them is irresponsible at best and negligent in the very least. Some people create their own misery and should not be enabled any more than we would enable a drug addict. I also know, from personal and professional experience, what happens to kids who are from such dysfunctional homes, who are removed, given back, time after time until they are so messed up that not even their parent(s) want them. Foster Care has failed miserably, and often, too often they end up in residential treatment which ends at age 18 and they are dumped on the street. Then what do you think happens? Right, for most, the cycle repeats.

I believe those who post regarding wanting to help these unfortunate people mean it, but it obviously isn't working when we examine the numbers. Throwing money, assistance, benefits at them isn't giving them what they NEED to get out of the cycle. So many of us are sounding mean, perhaps 'hard-nosed' is more accurate. I have suggested some things that i wish the government would try to enact, but I do know the country cannot continue the way it is going.



thumper5316 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > I guess some of you would like the poor and irresponsible to be sterilized so there won't be children to support. But who would pay for that? Of course there's always contraception and abortion. But wait---who'll pay for that? Just say "no" doesn't work.
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

The government has intervened - for decades. It isn't working. Now what? You are right, yes, education, job training, counseling, etc.and support while they work towards independence. But what about those who just don't want it? For those who refuse to take personal responsibility there must be consequences. And yes, we probably will experience much pain before any remedy takes effect.


alcameron said:


> I don't know the best solutions for dealing with poverty, but I do believe it has to be up to the government to intervene. There are no easy answers. I do believe we have to help people to get out of poverty through education and job training. They need food, childcare, rent money to be able to exist while they are trying to better themselves. I think it's very difficult to get out of the poverty cycle, especially when people have been there for a generation. We have to believe that there are many who succeed even though many are left behind for one reason or another. i think that our government has to help people break that cycle. It's the only way.


----------



## MOMTO2 (Feb 19, 2012)

I keep getting drawn into this posting, and continually find myself shaking my head. I am trying hard not to judge, as I see so many posts being judgmental of so many.

I do find myself appreciating where I live more and more each day as I read some of this. 

Let me tell you, I am educated and found myself pregnant at one time, I married the father and we were married for twenty years before he walked out and decided it wasn't for him any more. I work hard, have always paid my way and let me tell you where I live I pay lots of taxes and again glad that I do!

Circumstances can change on a dime! I only hope that those who oppose such programs certainly do not need assistance some day - or any members of their family, a little empathy and compassion can go a long way folks.

It also irritates me to no end to refer to a baby/child as an accident! They are human beings and unfortunately need help through no fault of their own.

For those who are so opposed to welfare, etc, what would you propose to do to make things better?


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Thank you, momeee. I have experienced all of the above in my extended family. With two step daughters who, between the two of them, had six children before the age of 20 all by different fathers. They were provided with apartments each, food stamps, phones, computers, Internet, full medical and dental, and taxi fare from place to place because the little darlings couldn't be expected to haul 3 kids around.



momeee said:


> I also share thumper's frustration. I would NEVER want a child to be hurt, deprived, hungry, abused,neglected...or have any thing unpleasant happen to him. Unfortunately all these nasties happen - and more. Our entire system is broken. Despite the efforts of the schools, government, charities, and some religious organizations, kids suffer when the parent(s) cannot or do not adequately care for them. Yes, it is a known fact that some continue to have children in order to add to their entitlements (and I do think that needs to be discouraged, stopped, or prevented as a first step).Bringing more children into a family that can not adequately care for them is irresponsible at best and negligent in the very least. Some people create their own misery and should not be enabled any more than we would enable a drug addict. I also know, from personal and professional experience, what happens to kids who are from such dysfunctional homes, who are removed, given back, time after time until they are so messed up that not even their parent(s) want them. Foster Care has failed miserably, and often, too often they end up in residential treatment which ends at age 18 and they are dumped on the street. Then what do you think happens? Right, for most, the cycle repeats.
> 
> I believe those who post regarding wanting to help these unfortunate people mean it, but it obviously isn't working when we examine the numbers. Throwing money, assistance, benefits at them isn't giving them what they NEED to get out of the cycle. So many of us are sounding mean, perhaps 'hard-nosed' is more accurate. I have suggested some things that i wish the government would try to enact, but I do know the country cannot continue the way it is going.
> 
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

[/quote]

So, again, you have no solution other than to tell people they are mean when they get totally fed up supporting, over and over and over again, people that continue to have "accidents" (I've never known any woman to fall over on her back naked and with her legs apart as being an 'accident'). When do the repercussions fall on them rather than us all the time?[/quote]

Oh please...this latest economic downturn should have shown that even the most stable and responsible of families can bottom out. In 2010 the #1 cause of bankruptcy was medical expenses--even though 78% of those folks had insurance. Unexpected illness, marital breakup, job termination --all these things can send a family down the tubes financially. Is everyone reading this convinced beyond all doubt that it could never ever happen to them?


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

MOMTO2 said:


> I keep getting drawn into this posting, and continually find myself shaking my head. I am trying hard not to judge, as I see so many posts being judgmental of so many.
> 
> I do find myself appreciating where I live more and more each day as I read some of this.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

MOMTO2 said:


> I keep getting drawn into this posting, and continually find myself shaking my head. I am trying hard not to judge, as I see so many posts being judgmental of so many.
> 
> I do find myself appreciating where I live more and more each day as I read some of this.
> 
> ...


Thank you for posting this. Nobody is immune.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

I am not opposed to Welfare. I just don't like it when people who don't need it or deserve it, get it. And there are too many who do.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

I would question that the #1 cause of bankruptcy was medical expenses. I believe it had to do with numerous factors involving the lenders qualifying buyers who weren't really qualified for the amount being borrowed, not getting or requiring proper documentation regarding the buyers' incomes, payment history, and buyers who accepted mortgage terms which required increased payments a few years down the road, which they'd never be able to make. In addition, with the downturn in the economy many were unemployed and could no longer make any payments and the banks were not willing to work with them.

If your point is that anyone can have an emergency or tragedy and need temporary help, no one could argue or disagree with that. I am also sure that some bankruptcies occurred due to a reversal of family status and income, unrelated to the home-loan debacle.

quote=susanmos2000][/quote]
So, again, you have no solution other than to tell people they are mean when they get totally fed up supporting, over and over and over again, people that continue to have "accidents" (I've never known any woman to fall over on her back naked and with her legs apart as being an 'accident'). When do the repercussions fall on them rather than us all the time?[/quote]

Oh please...this latest economic downturn should have shown that even the most stable and responsible of families can bottom out. In 2010 the #1 cause of bankruptcy was medical expenses--even though 78% of those folks had insurance. Unexpected illness, marital breakup, job termination --all these things can send a family down the tubes financially. Is everyone reading this convinced beyond all doubt that it could never ever happen to them?[/quote]


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

You are right! You crack me up!


alcameron said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Why talk about Bush. It is time to forget him. Obama is the focus, unfortunately. The past is past.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

A few pages back some folks were jumping all over me, saying that I was presumptuous to decide how people should spend their wealth. However, I would would like to know who gets to decide who "deserves" it. And, why do you think there are people who can get welfare who don't need it?


Lukelucy said:


> I am not opposed to Welfare. I just don't like it when people who don't need it or deserve it, get it. And there are too many who do.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

momeee said:


> I would question that the #1 cause of bankruptcy was medical expenses. I believe it had to do with numerous factors involving the lenders qualifying buyers who weren't really qualified for the amount being borrowed, not getting or requiring proper documentation regarding the buyers' incomes, payment history, and buyers who accepted mortgage terms which required increased payments a few years down the road, which they'd never be able to make. In addition, with the downturn in the economy many were unemployed and could no longer make any payments and the banks were not willing to work with them.
> 
> If your point is that anyone can have an emergency or tragedy and need temporary help, no one could argue or disagree with that. I am also sure that some bankruptcies occurred due to a reversal of family status and income, unrelated to the home-loan debacle.
> 
> quote=susanmos2000]


So, again, you have no solution other than to tell people they are mean when they get totally fed up supporting, over and over and over again, people that continue to have "accidents" (I've never known any woman to fall over on her back naked and with her legs apart as being an 'accident'). When do the repercussions fall on them rather than us all the time?[/quote]

Oh please...this latest economic downturn should have shown that even the most stable and responsible of families can bottom out. In 2010 the #1 cause of bankruptcy was medical expenses--even though 78% of those folks had insurance. Unexpected illness, marital breakup, job termination --all these things can send a family down the tubes financially. Is everyone reading this convinced beyond all doubt that it could never ever happen to them?[/quote][/quote]

good response bankruptcy at number 1 ???. Yes it can happen to anyone, but we are talking about the people who do not take responsibility for their actions, other then to expect goverment to bail them out.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Why talk about Bush. It is time to forget him. Obama is the focus, unfortunately. The past is past.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> Thank you, momeee. I have experienced all of the above in my extended family. With two step daughters who, between the two of them, had six children before the age of 20 all by different fathers. They were provided with apartments each, food stamps, phones, computers, Internet, full medical and dental, and taxi fare from place to place because the little darlings couldn't be expected to haul 3 kids around.


If this is true your stepdaughters were underage minors during at least some of their pregnancies, not the scheming little welfare queens you portray them as. Teens are notorious for making poor and impulsive choices--this is where decent programs that provide counseling, education, and job training can make all the difference in the world for them.

Good gosh, are you totally lacking in compassion? Do you really want your stepdaughters--neither of whom is even 21 yet-- "punished" for their mistakes by being forced to live in a filthy little hovel somewhere? Even if the thought brings you pleasure, please remember that these are your husbands's children and grandchildren. Even if you don't give a hang about their welfare it's safe to assume that he does.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> A few pages back some folks were jumping all over me, saying that I was presumptuous to decide how people should spend their wealth. However, I would would like to know who gets to decide who "deserves" it. And, why do you think there are people who can get welfare who don't need it?
> 
> 
> Lukelucy said:
> ...


because there are people who do take advantage of the system. 
You really can't believe that all the people who collect welfare do need it do you?? There are people out there who are living off welfare as a way to not have to get off their behind and get a job.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you, momeee. I have experienced all of the above in my extended family. With two step daughters who, between the two of them, had six children before the age of 20 all by different fathers. They were provided with apartments each, food stamps, phones, computers, Internet, full medical and dental, and taxi fare from place to place because the little darlings couldn't be expected to haul 3 kids around.
> ...


When a child makes a mistake you help them when a girl in her teens continues doing it over and above what she knows is wrong then expect someone to take care of all her problems, that is wrong. It has nothing to do with compassion it has to do with not seeing them learning from their mistakes . How can you judge what she feels or thinks, she was only stateing what has happen to her and her family.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Right on Momee. Thank you for your message. I'm with you.


----------



## MOMTO2 (Feb 19, 2012)

Tell me, are you equally unforgiving of those who can afford to pay their taxes and avoid it, or squirrel it away off shore so that it can't be touched?

Or is your distaste just for those in a lower income bracket?

People are people and yes there is abuse of every system, by a few, I would hazzard to guess the majority of those on the system are there because they need it and do not have that many other options.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


I guess you'll head up the morality police. Try to sell your rself-control to teenagers. At least teach them to use condoms, if only for health reasons,


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Rocky says: No contraception (fixed the spelling), no abortion, however starving to death is the way to go.
> 
> Who is starving whom? Why are they starving? Has someone stolen their food? Isn't Obama giving away enough food stamps to feed a small nation? More people on food stamps, therefore more people have funds for food, therefore they are eating.


Taking away unemployment insurance, cutting scchool lunch programs, limiting welfare for only those who prove they are the worthy ones. Punish the chilren for the sins of their parents.Thank you for correcting my spelling of contraceptiom.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Thank youl They are the last ones in this country who should get a raise. In fact, their paychecks should be held until they ALL can agree on and pass a workable budget.



off2knit said:


> $83,679 vs. $51,986. Who Deserves a Raise?
> 
> Congressman Cantor Opposes Across the Board Federal Civilian Pay Raise
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you, momeee. I have experienced all of the above in my extended family. With two step daughters who, between the two of them, had six children before the age of 20 all by different fathers. They were provided with apartments each, food stamps, phones, computers, Internet, full medical and dental, and taxi fare from place to place because the little darlings couldn't be expected to haul 3 kids around.
> ...


I'm sorry they aren't step daughters. They are/were step nieces. Step daughters of my husbands brother.

I didn't say that they were still under 21. The oldest of the two is now out of prison where she spent 15 years for murdering my brother-in-law. When she was declared an unfit mother by the state my BIL refused to pay her and her Chicago gang boyfriend $10,000 to adopt her third child (he consented, due to threats from his wife, to adopt the two oldest ones) so she killed him. The oldest of the murderer's children went on to have her own child outside of marriage at the age of 17. It made the papers when her Chicago gang banger boyfriend killed the baby at the age of 2 months.

I don't care what the sister of the murderer is doing. We have long since severed ties with the family and wouldn't give them the time of day if they did contact us.

Would I like to envision them all living in a dirt hovel? Personally, I think that would be too good for them. Right now they are all living in the nice, big house that was paid in full with my BILs life insurance money.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Tae a look at the statistics for chilren whoare foo insecure.


momeee said:


> the ones bearing food stamps that I see at my grocery store on the first of the month sure don't look like they've been starving! Oh, don't tell me they are forced to eat all that high calorie fast food!
> 
> 
> off2knit said:
> ...


Take a look at statistics on children who are food insecure in this country. And being a wise ass does not suit. There are people in this country who are food insecure.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Rocky says: No contraception (fixed the spelling), no abortion, however starving to death is the way to go.
> 
> Who is starving whom? Why are they starving? Has someone stolen their food? Isn't Obama giving away enough food stamps to feed a small nation? More people on food stamps, therefore more people have funds for food, therefore they are eating.


Check thhttp://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspxis out, honey


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Why does everone who does not agree with what is said about some useing welfare continue to say we are a hard hearted bunch because we do not feel that there are some out there who just use the system to get all they want when they want, and not even think of getting a job???
We are not wish for children to be neglected, we want their paraents who are capable of working to step up and take care of their children. 
Some one mention a while back they should have parenting classes. What happen to common sense??? You have to learn how to take care of your children? I seem to remember raising my sons and knowing what was right and what was wrong and if I had a question I would ask someone who knew.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Tae a look at the statistics for chilren whoare foo insecure.
> 
> 
> momeee said:
> ...


Where are the parents that put these children on this earth. I would go hungry and work where ever I could before I would let my child go hungry.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

I have distaste for anyone who does something illegal, regardless of income bracket. People should be equal under the law. FYI, offshore accounts are legal, I just don't know anything else to tell you about the requirements in the requirement regarding reporting them to govt.. Obama has money off shore.



MOMTO2 said:


> Tell me, are you equally unforgiving of those who can afford to pay their taxes and avoid it, or squirrel it away off shore so that it can't be touched?
> 
> Or is your distaste just for those in a lower income bracket?
> 
> People are people and yes there is abuse of every system, by a few, I would hazzard to guess the majority of those on the system are there because they need it and do not have that many other options.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I am shocked to see people on this site talk about giving someone's children to someone else to raise! First of all, many children who live in poverty are being raised by people other than their own parents - for whatever reason. The notion that you should just rip these children from their parents and "give" them to someone else is heartless, at best! We would be much better served by putting programs in place that help parents learn how to be better parents, teach them about birth control. But, that costs money. Oh, and we sure don't want to fund sex education which teaches about birth control, either. The focus on abstinance is flying in the face of reality. Just don't have sex? What world are you living in?
> ...


PP is a wondrful organization that helps many women in this country, They actually educate woman about their bodies and help them with cancr screenings. They teach aout birth control and keeping one safe from sexually transmitted dieases that can kill. Is this a bad organization?


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Why does everone who does not agree with what is said about some useing welfare continue to say we are a hard hearted bunch because we do not feel that there are some out there who just use the system to get all they want when they want, and not even think of getting a job???
> We are not wish for children to be neglected, we want their paraents who are capable of working to step up and take care of their children.
> Some one mention a while back they should have parenting classes. What happen to common sense??? You have to learn how to take care of your children? I seem to remember raising my sons and knowing what was right and what was wrong and if I had a question I would ask someone who knew.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

This is what I got when I clicked on the link.

Page Not Found

Sorry! We couldn't find this page.
The page you are looking does not exist on the Feeding America Web site. Possible reasons include:

You may be following a link to a page that we have taken down.
You may have mistyped the address.
Or the page you are looking for may have a new address on our new site.

Please search our site or contact us if you cannot find what you are looking for. 


rocky1991 said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky says: No contraception (fixed the spelling), no abortion, however starving to death is the way to go.
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Thumper, what a horror story. Yes, you've seen first hand what enablement can do to a person. So sorry you experienced this.



thumper5316 said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > I would question that the #1 cause of bankruptcy was medical expenses. I believe it had to do with numerous factors involving the lenders qualifying buyers who weren't really qualified for the amount being borrowed, not getting or requiring proper documentation regarding the buyers' incomes, payment history, and buyers who accepted mortgage terms which required increased payments a few years down the road, which they'd never be able to make. In addition, with the downturn in the economy many were unemployed and could no longer make any payments and the banks were not willing to work with them.
> ...


Oh please...this latest economic downturn should have shown that even the most stable and responsible of families can bottom out. In 2010 the #1 cause of bankruptcy was medical expenses--even though 78% of those folks had insurance. Unexpected illness, marital breakup, job termination --all these things can send a family down the tubes financially. Is everyone reading this convinced beyond all doubt that it could never ever happen to them?[/quote][/quote]

good response bankruptcy at number 1 ???. Yes it can happen to anyone, but we are talking about the people who do not take responsibility for their actions, other then to expect goverment to bail them out.[/quote]

google top reasons for bankruptcy: 1. Medical expenses


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > thumper5316 said:
> ...


OK, that does put something of a different spin on things...I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions without knowing the full story. My heartfelt sympathies and prayers.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

momeee said:


> This is what I got when I clicked on the link.
> 
> Page Not Found
> 
> ...


Just click on the sub headings you will find lots of interesting facts about hunger in this country.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

alcameron said:


> I guess some of you would like the poor and irresponsible to be sterilized so there won't be children to support. But who would pay for that? Of course there's always contraception and abortion. But wait---who'll pay for that? Just say "no" doesn't work.
> News flash: the children are already here. Shall we let them suffer? From your words, some of you sound so very hateful. Hate Obama, hate Michelle, hate the kids, hate the democrats, hate poor people, hate the government, hate the congress, hate taxes. And the list goes on . . . . .


All this hate speech that you accuse some of us, is an out right lie. I can not remember someone say that they hate Obama, Michelle.....blah blah blah and of course the Lib mantra they(we) HATE THE CHILDREN.

Pathetic rhetoric


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > This is what I got when I clicked on the link.
> ...


This might be the link she was trying to post

http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/child-hunger-facts.aspx


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

off2knit said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > I guess some of you would like the poor and irresponsible to be sterilized so there won't be children to support. But who would pay for that? Of course there's always contraception and abortion. But wait---who'll pay for that? Just say "no" doesn't work.
> ...


Pathetic response. You sound like you hate everyone.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > A few pages back some folks were jumping all over me, saying that I was presumptuous to decide how people should spend their wealth. However, I would would like to know who gets to decide who "deserves" it. And, why do you think there are people who can get welfare who don't need it?
> ...


Going on welfare is a pretty bad way to make a living, at least in California. All able-bodies adults must work a minimum of 34 hours, there's a cap of $954 for a household consisting of five children and one adult, and cash payments are limited to a period of six months (or less). Why would anyone choose to go on welfare unless they were absolutely desperate?


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > momeee said:
> ...


[/quote]

good response bankruptcy at number 1 ???. Yes it can happen to anyone, but we are talking about the people who do not take responsibility for their actions, other then to expect goverment to bail them out.[/quote]

google top reasons for bankruptcy: 1. Medical 
expenses[/quote]

Maybe if Obama had not lost 8.5 million jobs in 4 years, people would have the money to buy health insurance. But no, we had to invest in bankrupt green jobs. Just think how many bills could have been paid if Selendra had not been funded.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

off2knit said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


good response bankruptcy at number 1 ???. Yes it can happen to anyone, but we are talking about the people who do not take responsibility for their actions, other then to expect goverment to bail them out.[/quote]

google top reasons for bankruptcy: 1. Medical 
expenses[/quote]

Maybe if Obama had not lost 8.5 million jobs in 4 years, people would have the money to buy health insurance. But no, we had to invest in bankrupt green jobs. Just think how many bills could have been paid if Selendra had not been funded.[/quote]

You mean Solyndra?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

off2knit said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


good response bankruptcy at number 1 ???. Yes it can happen to anyone, but we are talking about the people who do not take responsibility for their actions, other then to expect goverment to bail them out.[/quote]

google top reasons for bankruptcy: 1. Medical 
expenses[/quote]

Maybe if Obama had not lost 8.5 million jobs in 4 years, people would have the money to buy health insurance. But no, we had to invest in bankrupt green jobs. Just think how many bills could have been paid if Selendra had not been funded.[/quote]

Just think how many things could have been done if we didn't have 2 wars to pay for. Wars predicated on lies.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

alcameron said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


google top reasons for bankruptcy: 1. Medical 
expenses[/quote]

Maybe if Obama had not lost 8.5 million jobs in 4 years, people would have the money to buy health insurance. But no, we had to invest in bankrupt green jobs. Just think how many bills could have been paid if Selendra had not been funded.[/quote]

Just think how many things could have been done if we didn't have 2 wars to pay for. Wars predicated on lies.[/quote]

You mean the ones that obama has kept us in even now and that were predicated on bad intel from the Clinton WH?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Maybe if Obama had not lost 8.5 million jobs in 4 years, people would have the money to buy health insurance. But no, we had to invest in bankrupt green jobs. Just think how many bills could have been paid if Selendra had not been funded.[/quote]

Just think how many things could have been done if we didn't have 2 wars to pay for. Wars predicated on lies.[/quote]

You mean the ones that obama has kept us in even now and that were predicated on bad intel from the Clinton WH?[/quote]

While I'm not happy with a continuing war, there's no way you can pin the wars on Clinton. I won't even entertain that thought. The evil-doers were responsible---Cheney, Rummy, and Bush.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

So, again, you have no solution other than to tell people they are mean when they get totally fed up supporting, over and over and over again, people that continue to have "accidents" (I've never known any woman to fall over on her back naked and with her legs apart as being an 'accident'). When do the repercussions fall on them rather than us all the time?[/quote]

Oh please...this latest economic downturn should have shown that even the most stable and responsible of families can bottom out. In 2010 the #1 cause of bankruptcy was medical expenses--even though 78% of those folks had insurance. Unexpected illness, marital breakup, job termination --all these things can send a family down the tubes financially. Is everyone reading this convinced beyond all doubt that it could never ever happen to them?[/quote]

Thanks for the belly laugh of describing a woman getting pregnant--a great description!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Tae a look at the statistics for chilren whoare foo insecure.
> ...


Amen, Yarnie, you go girl!


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Please give the source for your infomation about the President's "off shore" accounts.


momeee said:


> I have distaste for anyone who does something illegal, regardless of income bracket. People should be equal under the law. FYI, offshore accounts are legal, I just don't know anything else to tell you about the requirements in the requirement regarding reporting them to govt.. Obama has money off shore.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


Oh, Dear me, I think it is time for a cup of coffee and a cookie! What kind do you both enjoy?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I think she went off2knit and I have my own cookies. Read her posts. Nothing but venom.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> I think she went off2knit and I have my own cookies. Read her posts. Nothing but venom.


Off2knit is a very kind person as we all have our views. You also have good qualities so put them to work.

Tomorrow is another day. I'm in the snapdragon part of life-- part of me has "snapped" and the rest is dragging!

Talk tomorrow--night, night!


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Please give the source for your infomation about the President's "off shore" accounts.
> ...


 :thumbup:


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Please give the source for your infomation about the President's "off shore" accounts.
> ...


 :thumbup:


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Thank you. joeysomma.
Pardoquilts - Here is a small smattering of sources for evidence of Obama's off shore investments, including the transcript from one of the debates, where I first became aware of his hypocrisy in this matter. I apologize for the length and the number of sources, but I did try to keep them to a minimum while providing enough evidence. 
It is only fair to point out that in addition to Obama's investments, there are numerous members of his administration who have also availed themselves of this investment opportunity. It is my opinion that anyone who is investing these hefty sums would have to be a fool to not know where the investment was really based....

Obamas off shore investments

Obamas financial disclosure lists an investment of between $50,001 and $100,000 in the Illinois state retirement system, dating from his years as a state legislator. That $11.5-billion fund has about $2.1 billion invested in companies based in other countries, including China, according to its most recent annual report. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/17/news/la-pn-presidential-debate-outsourcing-20121017

Obama's Offshore Investments?
October 16, 2012 - 10:06pm 
MR. ROMNEY: Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I dont look at my pension. Its not as big as yours, so it -- it doesnt take as long. The --
MR. ROMNEY: Well, let me -- let me give you -- (laughter) -- let me -- let me give you some advice.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I dont check it that often. (Chuckles.)
MR. ROMNEY: Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Chuckles.) OK.
MR. ROMNEY: You also investments in Chinese companies.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah.
MR. ROMNEY: You also have investments outside the United States.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah.
MR. ROMNEY: You also have investments through a Caymans trust, all right?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: All right. (Inaudible) --
MS. CROWLEY: And we are way -- were sort of way off topic here, Governor Romney. We are completely off immigration.
MR. ROMNEY: So -- so Mr. President -- so --
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Were -- were -- were a little off topic here, yeah. Come on. The -- I thought we were talking about immigration. I -- I -- I -- I -- I -- I -- I do want to -- I do want to -- I do want to make sure that --https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/us/politics/transcript-of-the-second-p...

Politifact, one of the lefts favorite sources of campaign dirt, confirms that investments made by managers of the Illinois pension fund in which Obama has an account does indeed have holdings in the Cayman Islands.Trouble in paradise: Obama has offshore investments in Cayman Islands http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/10/18/trouble-in-paradise-obama-has-offshore-investments-in-cayman-islands/

From another source: Romney told Obama: "You also have investments in Chinese companies. You also have investments outside the United States. You also have investments through a Caymans trust."
Its an accurate set of statements when you consider investments made by managers of the Illinois pension fund in which Obama has an account.
As we noted in reviewing previous claims about Romneys investments in China, the investments involved are indirect and -- as far as anybody has said -- made without the knowledge of the account holder. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/oct/17/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-also-has-investments-chinese-com/

Regarding Obamas nominee for Treasury secretary, Jack Lew.
It turns out Lew had $56,000 invested in a Citigroup venture capital fund based in . . . wait for it . . . the Cayman Islands. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a member of the Finance Committee before which Lew will soon appear, declared, The irony is thick, pointing out that President Obama has been almost obsessively critical of offshore investments.
Lews defenders point out that his investment was only $56,000. Well, $56,000 may be a small amount in Washington and on Wall Street, but it is more than the annual income of the typical American family. They say that he sold his Cayman holdings for a loss three years ago. But Lew divested himself and sold his investment for a loss only when confirmed as director of the Office of Management and Budget. Before that, even as a senior State Department official, he had no problem parking his money offshore.
Democrats point out that Republican Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson also had investments in the Cayman Islands and that Republicans did not view this as disqualifying. But the ethics of investing in the Cayman islands is not the issue here. The issue is Obamas hypocrisy.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-11/opinions/37028444_1_cayman-islands-jack-lew-tax-scam

Lews Cayman Islands Fund a Likely Issue at Confirmation Hearings
President Obama has been almost obsessively critical of offshore investments, Mr. Grassley said. He called Ugland House either the biggest building or the biggest tax scam on record. That makes this Cayman Islands investment of his top official and now Treasury secretary nominee worthy of attention. The irony is thick. Members of the Finance Committee will question Mr. Lew about his foreign investments at the hearing. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/lews-cayman-islands-fund-a-likely-issue-at-confirmation-hearings/

Nancy Pelosi made up to $5 million in offshore investments last year  invests in company called outsourcing pioneer http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/07/11/nancy-pelosi-made-up-to-5-million-in-offshore-investments-last-year-invests-in-company-called-outsourcing-pioneer-in-romney-ads/



joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Please give the source for your infomation about the President's "off shore" accounts.
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

If pension funds have investments offshore then I have some, too!


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

I don't know that ALL pension funds invest off shore, do you?


alcameron said:


> If pension funds have investments offshore then I have some, too!


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

I read a little bit to see if there were more on the #1 cause of bankruptcy....
Is medical debt really the leading cause of bankruptcy?
When medical cost was listed as the #1 cause of bankruptcy the report was based on a Harvard study published in 2005.
The fact-checking organization PolitiFact evaluated U.S Rep.Patrick J.Kennedy's assertion that out-of-control medical costs were the most common cause of personal bankruptcies in the United States. Kennedy made this statement while offering his support for President Obama's health care act and labeled it "half true."
PolitiFact talked with experts at the American Bankruptcy Institute, who verified that medical debt is "definitely a big cause" of personal bankruptcies. However, they also said that credit cards, layoffs, the death of a spouse and the current housing crisis are also common contributing factors.
PolitiFact then discovered a Harvard survey that found that 29 percent of respondents blamed their bankruptcies on overwhelming medical bills. However, 62 percent of respondents said that income loss or mortgage troubles related to an illness or injury played a role in their pre-bankruptcy financial problems.
Finally, PolitiFact looked to a 2011 report from the Institute for Financial Literacy. That organization surveyed bankruptcy filers and found that just over 70 percent reported that being "overextended on credit" was one of the leading causes of their financial troubles. By comparison, only about 31 percent blamed illness or injury. People who are struggling with unaffordable medical bills should be aware that most medical debt can be discharged in bankruptcy.



momeee said:


> I would question that the #1 cause of bankruptcy was medical expenses. I believe it had to do with numerous factors involving the lenders qualifying buyers who weren't really qualified for the amount being borrowed, not getting or requiring proper documentation regarding the buyers' incomes, payment history, and buyers who accepted mortgage terms which required increased payments a few years down the road, which they'd never be able to make. In addition, with the downturn in the economy many were unemployed and could no longer make any payments and the banks were not willing to work with them.
> 
> If your point is that anyone can have an emergency or tragedy and need temporary help, no one could argue or disagree with that. I am also sure that some bankruptcies occurred due to a reversal of family status and income, unrelated to the home-loan debacle.
> 
> quote=susanmos2000]


So, again, you have no solution other than to tell people they are mean when they get totally fed up supporting, over and over and over again, people that continue to have "accidents" (I've never known any woman to fall over on her back naked and with her legs apart as being an 'accident'). When do the repercussions fall on them rather than us all the time?[/quote]susanmos2000


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

momeee said:


> I would question that the #1 cause of bankruptcy was medical expenses. I believe it had to do with numerous factors involving the lenders qualifying buyers who weren't really qualified for the amount being borrowed, not getting or requiring proper documentation regarding the buyers' incomes, payment history, and buyers who accepted mortgage terms which required increased payments a few years down the road, which they'd never be able to make. In addition, with the downturn in the economy many were unemployed and could no longer make any payments and the banks were not willing to work with them.
> 
> If your point is that anyone can have an emergency or tragedy and need temporary help, no one could argue or disagree with that. I am also sure that some bankruptcies occurred due to a reversal of family status and income, unrelated to the home-loan debacle.
> 
> quote=susanmos2000]


Oh please...this latest economic downturn should have shown that even the most stable and responsible of families can bottom out. In 2010 the #1 cause of bankruptcy was medical expenses

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

You mean he knew how to pronounce corpsman and the number of United States of America? And used a teleprompter to speak to high school students?


momeee said:


> You are right! You crack me up!
> 
> 
> alcameron said:
> ...


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

And how do you come to your conclusions based on the information given? You certainly have made a lot of assumptions.


susanmos2000 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you, momeee. I have experienced all of the above in my extended family. With two step daughters who, between the two of them, had six children before the age of 20 all by different fathers. They were provided with apartments each, food stamps, phones, computers, Internet, full medical and dental, and taxi fare from place to place because the little darlings couldn't be expected to haul 3 kids around.
> ...


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

thumper5316 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Maybe if Obama had not lost 8.5 million jobs in 4 years, people would have the money to buy health insurance. But no, we had to invest in bankrupt green jobs. Just think how many bills could have been paid if Selendra had not been funded.[/quote]

Just think how many things could have been done if we didn't have 2 wars to pay for. Wars predicated on lies.[/quote]

You mean the ones that obama has kept us in even now and that were predicated on bad intel from the Clinton WH?[/quote]

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

While I'm not happy with a continuing war, there's no way you can pin the wars on Clinton. I won't even entertain that thought. The evil-doers were responsible---Cheney, Rummy, and Bush.[/quote]

Maybe if Clinton had gotten O.B.L when he had the chance instead of having sex in the WH and bombing aspirin factories we would not be in this mess. Maybe if he had acted when the Towers were hit the first time, when the Cole had been attacked,.......none of this would have happened or minimized

If the wars were not necessary, Obama would have stopped them. Maybe he should propose a budget for the House to vote one, even if cut the wars' budget, your comment would have more teeth.

Opinions stated with love not hateful venom.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

RUKnitting said:


> And how do you come to your conclusions based on the information given? You certainly have made a lot of assumptions.
> 
> 
> susanmos2000 said:
> ...


You're absolutely right and I feel terrible about it...thumper clarified the situation with her stepdaughters and revealed that their wrong decisions involved not only having too many babies but also blackmail and murder as well! Ouch! I apologized to her for jumping to conclusions in a previous post, but I don't mind doing so again...I really am sorry thumper for making acid comments and judgments about your attitude toward your stepdaughters...sorry too if I caused you any further pain in what must be a horrific situation to have to deal with. Alas it's so easy to jump to easy (and wrong) conclusions when reading threads and posting comments!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

(And sorry too for posting the details of a private family matter in a public forum...there was no other way to show how uninformed I was about the situation but to mention the relevant facts)


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

It's no problem, susanmos2000. I do realize that my situation is not the norm.

However, I am also aware that how we have tried to deal with the high birth rate of babies to single mothers does nothing more than create a statistical certainty that these children will be raised in poverty and will do poorly in school. Throwing more money at the situation has not and is not going to make them better mothers.

Statistics have shown that all the money spent on initiatives to help improve the early learning (ala Head Start) are short term fixes and do not have a statistically significant impact on the long term. I.e. it's money poorly spent.

Sex education in the schools isn't working. Now the liberal minded want us to supply the kiddies with the birth control as well. As we've read in previous postings sex in humans is not controlable according to the more liberal minded. Kids will engage in it anyway. Well, they'll drink; they'll smoke. Should we supply them with alcohol and free rides so that they drink responsibly? Should we supply them with cigarettes and then nicotine gum when they decide they want to quit? After all, they're going to experiment with this stuff anyway. Let's make it all consequence free.

The state has replaced the parent and we wonder why the children are out of control. What has been tried since the '70's is not working and it's time to try a different direction.

And don't even get me started on daycare...



susanmos2000 said:


> RUKnitting said:
> 
> 
> > And how do you come to your conclusions based on the information given? You certainly have made a lot of assumptions.
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

> Now the liberal minded want us to supply the kiddies with the birth control as well.
> 
> 
> > Talk about coincidences...my eleven year-old son is having his first sex-ed talk at school today. The funny thing is that even though I signed a permission slip to allow him to hear all this I really was only given vague details about what exactly the program covers. Apparently the kiddie grapevine has been working overtime...much excited speculation that they'll be show condoms or something equally racy. The benefits/disadvantages of such programs are debatable, but there's no doubt that even pre-teens are intensely interested in the subject.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

I thought this was interesting:

An interesting perspective from the personnel

that protect our Presidents, Vice Presidents

and their families.

Secret Service thoughts about

Past President's and First Ladies

From the Secret Service/Very interesting snippets from Ronald Kesslerâs book about our presidents

Here are snippets from a book of âImpressions & Observationsâ of Secret Service personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice Presidents.

JOHN & JACQUELINE KENNEDY

*A philanderer of the highest order. *

*She ordered the kitchen help to save all the left-over wine during a State dinner, mixed it with fresh wine and served again during the next White House occasion.*

*LYNDON & LADYBIRD JOHNSON

*Another philanderer of the highest order. In addition, LBJ was as crude as the day is long.

Both JFK and LBJ kept a lot of women in the White House for extramarital affairs.

Both had set up âearly warning systemsâ to alert them if/when their wives were nearby.

Both Kennedy & Johnson were promiscuous and oversexed men. *

*She was either naive or just pretended to ânot knowâ about her husbandâs many liaisons. *

*RICHARD & PAT NIXON

*A âmoralâ man but very odd, weird, paranoid, etc. He had horrible relationship with his family, and in a way, was almost a recluse.*

*She was quiet most of the time.*

*SPIRO AGNEW

* Nice, decent man, everyone in the Secret Service was surprised by his downfall. *

*GERALD & BETTY FORD

*A true gentlemen who treated the Secret Service with respect and dignity. He had a great sense of humor. *

*She drank a lot!*

*JIMMY & ROSALYN CARTER

*A complete phony who would portray one picture of himself to public and very different in private e..g., would be shown carrying his own luggage, but the suitcases were always empty; he kept the empty ones just for photo ops.

Wanted the people to see him as pious and a non-drinker, but he and his family drank alcohol a lot! He had disdain for the Secret Service, and was very irresponsible with the âfootballâ with nuclear codes. He didnât think it was a big deal and would keep military aides at a great distance. Often did not acknowledge the presence of Secret Service personnel assigned to serve him.*

*She mostly did her own thing.*

*RONALD & NANCY REAGAN

*The real deal â moral, honest, respectful, and dignified. They treated Secret Service and everyone else with respect and honor. Thanked everyone all the time. He took the time to know everyone on a personal level.

* One âfavoriteâ story that has circulated among the Secret Service personnel was an incident early in his Presidency, when he came out of his room with a pistol tucked on his hip.

The agent in charge asked: âWhy the pistol, Mr. Presidentâ

He replied, âIn case you boys canât get the job done, I can help.â

It was common for him to carry a pistol. When he met with Gorbachev, he had a pistol in his briefcase.

Upon learning that Gary Hart was caught with Donna Rice, Reagan said, âBoys will be boys, but boys will not be Presidents.â

[He obviously either did not know or forgot JFK's and LBJ's sexcapades!]*

*She was very nice but very protective of the President; and the Secret Service was often caught in the middle. She tried hard to control what the President ate, and he would say to the agent, âCome on, you gotta help me out.â

The Reagans drank wine during State dinners and special occasions only; otherwise, they shunned alcohol; the Secret Service could count on one hand the times they were served wine during their âfamily dinnerâ .

For all the fake bluster of the Carters, the Reagans were the ones who lived life as genuinely moral people.*

*GEORGE H. & BARBARA BUSH

*Extremely kind and considerate Always respectful. Took great care in making sure the agentsâ comforts were taken care of. They even brought them meals, etc. One time Barbara Bush brought warm clothes to agents standing outside at Kennebunkport; one agent was given a warm hat, and when he tried to nicely say âno thanksâ even though he was obviously freezing, President Bush said âSon, donât argue with the First Lady, put the hat on.â He was the most prompt of the Presidents. He ran the White House like a well-oiled machine.*

*She ruled the house and spoke her mind.*

*BILL & HILLARY CLINTON

*Presidency was one giant party. Not trustworthy â he was nice mainly because he wanted everyone to like him, but to him life is just one big game and party. Everyone knows of his sexuality.*

*She is another phony. Her personality would change the instant cameras were near.

She hated with open disdain the military and Secret Service.

She was another one who felt people were there to serve her.

She was always trying to keep tabs on Bill Clinton.*

*ALBERT GORE

* An egotistical ass, who was once overheard by his Secret Service detail lecturing his only son that he needed to do better in school or he âwould end up like these guysâ â pointing to the agents.*

*GEORGE W. & LAURA BUSH

*The Secret Service loved him and Laura Bush. He was also the most physically âin shapeâ who had a very strict workout regimen.

The Bushes made sure their entire administrative and household staff understood they were to respect and be considerate of the Secret Service.

*She was one of the nicest First Ladies, if not the nicest; she never had any harsh word to say about anyone.*

*KARL ROVE was in fact, though, the guy who was the most caring of the Secret Service in the administration.*

*BARACK & MICHELLE OBAMA

*â Clinton all over againâ â hates the military and looks down on the Secret Service. He is egotistical and cunning; looks you in the eye and appears to agree with you, but turns around and does the opposite â untrustworthy. He has temper tantrums.*

*She is a complete bitch, who basically hates anybody who is not black; hates the military; and looks at the Secret Service as servants.*

A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

A lot of misinformation circulates amongst the kids. They need to be informed and many parents don't do their jobs by informing. It is a good thing. I am sure will be appropriate.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

This book wouldn't have any particular political agenda, would it? The Secret Service are not impervious to political bias. And, since you don't say who the actual author is, is it vaguely possible that the author had some kind of bias as well?

I swear, Lukelucy, if the President and his wife discovered the cure for cancer, you would go out of your way to put them down and question whether they actually did the work! This is truly hateful!


Lukelucy said:


> I thought this was interesting:
> 
> An interesting perspective from the personnel
> 
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

No, I have no idea. That's my point. I wouldn't know the first thing about where the money is.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

off2knit said:


> While I'm not happy with a continuing war, there's no way you can pin the wars on Clinton. I won't even entertain that thought. The evil-doers were responsible---Cheney, Rummy, and Bush.


Maybe if Clinton had gotten O.B.L when he had the chance instead of having sex in the WH and bombing aspirin factories we would not be in this mess. Maybe if he had acted when the Towers were hit the first time, when the Cole had been attacked,.......none of this would have happened or minimized

If the wars were not necessary, Obama would have stopped them. Maybe he should propose a budget for the House to vote one, even if cut the wars' budget, your comment would have more teeth.

Opinions stated with love not hateful venom.[/quote]

I couldn't tell.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Did you request if you could sit in the back of the class or to receive a print out of the talking points of the class along with a print out of the questions that were asked during the presentation (with the identity of the person asking being confidential)?

I'm the mom of 3 sons. I went through the same thing when my sons went through the class. When I asked for the information I was denied. I told them that I would then keep my son home from school that day and I was told that I would be reported to social services.

It bothered me in that they wouldn't share with me what they were going to tell MY kids. What were they saying that they didn't want to share with me. Why wouldn't they want me, as a responsible and involved parent, to discuss with my own children questions that were raised during the class? After all wasn't one of the biggest reasons that these classes were included in the public school ciriculum was that the schools didn't feel the parents were discussing sex with their children so they had to do it? But God forbid they let you know what they are telling your own children!

It just left me with a really bad feeling. But we got through it as I know you will.



susanmos2000 said:


> > Now the liberal minded want us to supply the kiddies with the birth control as well.
> >
> >
> > > Talk about coincidences...my eleven year-old son is having his first sex-ed talk at school today. The funny thing is that even though I signed a permission slip to allow him to hear all this I really was only given vague details about what exactly the program covers. Apparently the kiddie grapevine has been working overtime...much excited speculation that they'll be show condoms or something equally racy. The benefits/disadvantages of such programs are debatable, but there's no doubt that even pre-teens are intensely interested in the subject.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I think that sex education which actually teaches about their bodies and how to prevent STDs and pregnancies can't be anything but beneficial, particularly if they don't get much information at home. The responsibility for parents is to help them understand the true consequences of early sex and early parenthood. When my daughter was in high school, along with a sex ed class, they were given a talk by a heterosexual man who had contracted AIDS by contact with a woman who had the virus. He made a huge impression on the kids because he was only a few years older than they, and was very honest with them about the life he had lived and the life he expected to live with the disease. My daughter vowed that she would never have unprotected sex, and I'm pretty sure she has stuck to that promise to herself (she is now married and over 30). I think kids need real information, not platitudes, and they know when they are getting a "line" I would rather see condoms be available to teenagers than have to supply them with diapers!


susanmos2000 said:


> > Now the liberal minded want us to supply the kiddies with the birth control as well.
> >
> >
> > > Talk about coincidences...my eleven year-old son is having his first sex-ed talk at school today. The funny thing is that even though I signed a permission slip to allow him to hear all this I really was only given vague details about what exactly the program covers. Apparently the kiddie grapevine has been working overtime...much excited speculation that they'll be show condoms or something equally racy. The benefits/disadvantages of such programs are debatable, but there's no doubt that even pre-teens are intensely interested in the subject.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Yup - could have fooled me!


alcameron said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > While I'm not happy with a continuing war, there's no way you can pin the wars on Clinton. I won't even entertain that thought. The evil-doers were responsible---Cheney, Rummy, and Bush.
> ...


I couldn't tell.[/quote]


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

LukeLucy
Do you detect any prejudice in the book you either read or read about? Don't you think it strange that only republicans were nice to Secret Service men?


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Pardo, I agree whole-heartedly! My husband and myself always had frank and open discussions with our boys.

I would rather see supervision of their children by parents than have to supply condoms, diapers or hospice care.



pardoquilts said:


> I think that sex education which actually teaches about their bodies and how to prevent STDs and pregnancies can't be anything but beneficial, particularly if they don't get much information at home. The responsibility for parents is to help them understand the true consequences of early sex and early parenthood. When my daughter was in high school, along with a sex ed class, they were given a talk by a heterosexual man who had contracted AIDS by contact with a woman who had the virus. He made a huge impression on the kids because he was only a few years older than they, and was very honest with them about the life he had lived and the life he expected to live with the disease. My daughter vowed that she would never have unprotected sex, and I'm pretty sure she has stuck to that promise to herself (she is now married and over 30). I think kids need real information, not platitudes, and they know when they are getting a "line" I would rather see condoms be available to teenagers than have to supply them with diapers!
> 
> 
> susanmos2000 said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Thumper, I also know you have to be realistic about the raging hormones of teenagers, and their less than perfect ability to assess risk. To me, supplying condoms and birth control pills is preferable to the other options.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

That's why I also listed careful parental supervision. It amazes me that parents will watch after their kids when they are young so that they don't harm themselves. But then they stop when the kids reach adolescence and the behavior can affect the future of their life or create another life. How irresponsible is that?



pardoquilts said:


> Thumper, I also know you have to be realistic about the raging hormones of teenagers, and their less than perfect ability to assess risk. To me, supplying condoms and birth control pills is preferable to the other options.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Once the schools teach young people sex education, their parents should teach them what they believe and want their young people to believe about sexual behaviour, and respect for their bodies and that of other young people. I really believe sex education without the parental teaching leaves young people without the all important aspect of when and why they can express their sexuality. While the schools might have the responsibility to teach the mechanics of sex and reprodution, the parents have the responsibility to teach their offspring their moral and religious beliefs about sex. Young people also need to learn respect for their reproductive systems and respect for their peers as well.

Young people who don't have an understanding of how their bodies work, and don't have the supporting teaching from their parents about when sexual behaviour is appropriate leaves young people in the dark. They listen to their peers, who may not know anything about sex, and are left free to act however they want to.

I also think sex education should be limited to teaching young people how their reproductive systems work, and abou STDs and what their dangers are. When I was in 6th grade (way back in 1960) boys and girls were separated when sex education was taught. When I was in High School (1964-67) only 3 girls out of the 1150 female students got pregnant and had to leave school. Goodness knows how many girls get pregnant while in school nowadays. I hate to think about that.

Unfortunately, none of the above may ever happen. Sorry for ranting about this subject, but it's an issue I take seriously.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

To everyone who's remarked about sex education, I'm pretty liberal when it comes to certain social issues but when it comes to teaching our children certain things, like sex education, I'm very conservative. The world we live in now is difficult enough for young people to find their way through, and is made even more so without the supporting teaching parents can (and should) give. How can we expect our young people find their way through this tangled world without a reliable moral compass?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Once the schools teach young people sex education, their parents should teach them what they believe and want their young people to believe about sexual behaviour, and respect for their bodies and that of other young people. I really believe sex education without the parental teaching leaves young people without the all important aspect of when and why they can express their sexuality. While the schools might have the responsibility to teach the mechanics of sex and reprodution, the parents have the responsibility to teach their offspring their moral and religious beliefs about sex. Young people also need to learn respect for their reproductive systems and respect for their peers as well.
> 
> Young people who don't have an understanding of how their bodies work, and don't have the supporting teaching from their parents about when sexual behaviour is appropriate leaves young people in the dark. They listen to their peers, who may not know anything about sex, and are left free to act however they want to.
> 
> ...


Hmm, when I was in sixth grade the boys and girls were also separated when the topics of sex and reproduction came up--and that was in 1981! I guess some things never change...personally I have no problem with the separation policy--all children need to learn this stuff, of course, but separating them by sex probably makes it less embarrassing.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

No one has mentioned the effect that TV, movies, music, as well as influential adults - parents, significant others, friends- have in kids lives. They have access so very early, often unknown to parents, to all things sexual. Regular TV programs have topics and scenes I wouldn't want my kids to watch...and when TV is often the way a parent gets a few quiet minutes...no one knows what is the 'trigger' that eroticizes kids or at what age but a prepared parent helps to keep the door open to frequent talks about her families moral values regarding the topic. For a kid with a cell phone, tablet or computer...via the Internet and social networking, the whole world of sexual information is readily available to him. To not inform kids is to leave them vulnerable.

To the person who posted about school access: I'm surprised that the school wouldn't provide you with more info, if not access. Perhaps they thought the kids would be more inhibited if a parent were in the class would be my only answer. But if you had to sign off for your child to attend, there should have been available a syllabus or lesson plan....and later, questions the kids asked.

Most people have their own idea of what and when they want their kids to learn the 'facts', but with the early age that kids know about, and for some, engage in some level of sexual activity, I say knowledge is power, then the family value has to be added on top of that.

Back in the. 60s, in my inner city high school very few girls were pregnant, and if they were they went to live where they could spend for the duration of their pregnancy. No one kept the child. I think there were fewer pregnancies also because there was quite a stigma, religious affiliations had stronger influence in one's lives, along with no social programs to allow the girl independence, Today that school runs a day care, nursery, clinic for pregnant moms ans the kids. Most recently I learned that, on average there were 80 or more gals inthe program. Horrifying, but they are continuing their education and for some, they quickly see the need for more education and personal responsibility.

In the 80s in a suburban middle class town, I spoke to our pediatrician regarding what I learned about sexual activity among young teens starting middle school.... He said it was true, and in his practice, they performed pregnancy tests on at least 7 girls a week, and he had colleagues in the town and adjoining ones who had the same experience. In our high school I had a strident who had had 4 abortions prior to her senior year. I knew of only one student who kept her child with her parents help.
Yes, sex education works, but an involved parent is also a critical component.



joeysomma said:


> SeattleSoul said:
> 
> 
> > I also think sex education should be limited to teaching young people how their reproductive systems work. When I was in 6th grade (way back in 1960) boys and girls were separated when sex education was taught. When I was in High School (1964-67) only 3 girls out of the 1150 female students got pregnant and had to leave school. Goodness knows how many girls get pregnant while in school nowadays. I hate to think about that.
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

We all know the physical risks associated with unprotected teenage sexual activity, but why does no one ever seem to worry about what an emotional minefield it can be as well?

My sister (two sons) has instituted a strict "no-dating until you're 16" policy with her boys and has told me privately that she would like to continue it until they're through high school...I doubt this will be possible, but I can see where she's coming from.

Romantic relationships are difficult enough for adults to navigate--how's a fifteen- or sixteen year old supposed to manage them? There's the giddy "on cloud nine" stage, followed by the inevitable breakup--then lots of teary late-night phone calls, being the subject of gossip and speculation by too-interested friends and classmates, the agony of having to see one's ex the next day at school and pretend that nothing is wrong, the eventual reconciliation, and on and on it goes.

It's kind of retro for me to admit this, but I do wish today's teens could get their heads out of their pants and re-channel all that energy into their studies.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Some parents don't communicate important topics like sex to their children and schools must do it.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Momeee, I did leave out the influence TV (and movies, and all sorts of easily available media). I believe our young people are exposed to a great many things that give them messages about sexual behaviour (and many other things) that their parents would'nt approve of, though today's people of child bearing age don't seem to mind a lot of the stuff their children are exposed to. 

It seems to me that our young people don't get much protection from many things they aren't of an age to understand. Parents are supposed to provide that protection (among many other things) but that doesn't seem to be happening. Another "beef" I have about teenagers is that they seem to be out all hours of the night doing what they please and acting any old way they want to.

I'm of an age when parents took a lot more responsibility for the care and safety of their children, and I feel incredibly lucky that my parents gave me as much guidance and protection as they did. I wasn't allowed to watch certain TV shows or go to movies my parents didn't approve of. They reinforced that by picking me and my friends up after any movie we attended, so they knew whether we went where they expected us to go. 

And woe betide me if I didn't get home from school time unless I called home for permission to play at a friend's house. I still had to be home at dinner time, and when I was old enough to date I had a curfew that was carved in stone. My parents also had to meet my date beforehand and their parents, too.

My upbringing may sound very strict but I always think it's easier to err on the side of caution. The things we don't do can always be added while the wild things some young people do can never be taken back. My romantic partner was pretty much ignored as a teenager, and I think he's getting sick of hearing me say "I wasn't allowed to do that"


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

That is why I kept bringing up parental supervision. Our sons, who are now 23, 28, and 31, were never allowed at a girls house without a parent present. The two youngest did have cell phones but were required to call home when they arrived at a girl's house on a land line. We had caller ID and if the names didn't match when the call came in we requested to talk to a parent (older siblings didn't count). On the few occasions one was not present they had to wait for us to pick them up outside the house. Waiting can be long when it's -5 outside.

Dating was almost always a group thing. As I stated before the youngest of our sons went to a private school. The Military Ball and other functions were carefully chaperoned. If they bought tickets the parents were notified. So, if we weren't notified and they told us they were going to some function we knew they were lying. They soon knew not to try that. If they were late in arriving the parents were called. The valet parking was done by volunteer fathers who were really looking for those who had been drinking. If they detected alcohol the parents were called to come pick up their kids.

I could go on but I think you get the drift. They had fun but were always carefully chaperoned. Did they mind? Absolutely. Did they complain? Vociferously. Did we care? Nope because we _CARED_.

Some would say we were overbearing. However, we have sons that have no out of wedlock children, never been in rehab, got good grades and are responsible adults. They are now old enough to see what we did and are thanking us for standing firm.



SeattleSoul said:


> Momeee, I did leave out the influence TV (and movies, and all sorts of easily available media). I believe our young people are exposed to a great many things that give them messages about sexual behaviour (and many other things) that their parents would'nt approve of, though today's people of child bearing age don't seem to mind a lot of the stuff their children are exposed to.
> 
> It seems to me that our young people don't get much protection from many things they aren't of an age to understand. Parents are supposed to provide that protection (among many other things) but that doesn't seem to be happening. Another "beef" I have about teenagers is that they seem to be out all hours of the night doing what they please and acting any old way they want to.
> 
> ...


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

alcameron said:


> I guess some of you would like the poor and irresponsible to be sterilized so there won't be children to support. But who would pay for that? Of course there's always contraception and abortion. But wait---who'll pay for that? Just say "no" doesn't work.
> News flash: the children are already here. Shall we let them suffer? From your words, some of you sound so very hateful. Hate Obama, hate Michelle, hate the kids, hate the democrats, hate poor people, hate the government, hate the congress, hate taxes. And the list goes on . . . . .


And all the melodrama gets older and older.... so does the propaganda.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Thanks for your thoughtful answer. There were other rules my parents set, such as if a boy came to visit me and we went to my room, the door had to remain open. I wan't allowed to wear makeup (a little powder and a little lipstick) or date until I was 16, with parents taking us to and from those dates.

One of the greatest things about my parents is that they taught me, gently and firmly, to tell the truth. There were a few times I did something at school that required my parents to some and see the teacher. I didn't destroy property, cut classes or get into fights or anything like that. 

One incident that stands out for me and shows my relationship with my parents happend in 10th grade. My English teacher thought I had some ability to become a good writer and wanted me to stay after school so she could tutor me. I didn't like this teacher, which I kept very much to myself, and I politeley declined her offer.

She made a beeline to my counselor's office and told him I had used swear words and had a rude and bad attitude when I said I didn't want to stay after school. Of course, my counselor called my parents who sped to the school. In my counselors presence (and the teacher's, too) my father asked me what my side of the story was. I told him the exact truth and he responded by telling both my counselor, and especially my teacher to leave me alone and keep in mind I was a truthful kid and that if he had to come to my school to repeat himself they wouldn't find it a pleasant experience. He was my hero in shining armor that day.

Of course, my parents weren't perfect, but they were pretty good, good enough that I never wished any of my friends' parents were mine. I consider myself very fortunate.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

alcameron said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


And you have the nerve to talk about hating Obama, el al? Read your own words sometime, you might be surprised at how you come across.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

alcameron said:


> I don't know the best solutions for dealing with poverty, but I do believe it has to be up to the government to intervene. There are no easy answers. I do believe we have to help people to get out of poverty through education and job training. They need food, childcare, rent money to be able to exist while they are trying to better themselves. I think it's very difficult to get out of the poverty cycle, especially when people have been there for a generation. We have to believe that there are many who succeed even though many are left behind for one reason or another. i think that our government has to help people break that cycle. It's the only way.


The problem here is that the government is not helping people get out of poverty. They are enabling them to stay where they are and just "deal with" what life gives them. The major programs the gov't has either started or taken over fail one after the other. Example - Head Start. The program has been around for nearly 3 decades and has not worked. Just look at the end product - the people it was supposed to help are no better off today than they were before the program started. The solution to getting out of poverty has to begin at home, with the parents and then schools, neighborhoods, churches, etc. The government should be the last place to turn.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> A few pages back some folks were jumping all over me, saying that I was presumptuous to decide how people should spend their wealth. However, I would would like to know who gets to decide who "deserves" it. And, why do you think there are people who can get welfare who don't need it?
> 
> 
> Lukelucy said:
> ...


Please, this happens everyday in every state. The gov't is deciding who gets the welfare.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

My kids are now all over 30, but my ideas of supervision during teenage years was a little different. We lived directly behind the high school, I was able to be a stay-at-home mom, and my kids were encouraged to bring their friends over whenever they wanted. I did not have any rules about open doors, but the kids, including my own, who spent countless hours at my house, eating my food, and talking to me - and each other - knew that I trusted them to behave in a civilized manner. After they grew up, my own kids told me, independently of each other, that the meanest thing I ever did as a parent was to trust them! They knew that if I lost trust in them, they would lose something precious. Their friends were also incredibly considerate of me and our home, and about a dozen of them attended my wedding when I remarried. I also noticed that the kids whose parents rode them the hardest were often the ones who went crazy when they went away to college. I'm not saying one method is better than another, and you do have to have a good feel for your own kids personalities. But my sons and daughter are all responsibile, productive adults, with families of their own. Two of them have advanced degrees, they all live within their means, and I will be very curious to see how they handle the adolescence of their own kids. I think that ultimately a parent's responsibility is to create the internal morality that is needed to be successful adults - however you define morality.


thumper5316 said:


> That is why I kept bringing up parental supervision. Our sons, who are now 23, 28, and 31, were never allowed at a girls house without a parent present. The two youngest did have cell phones but were required to call home when they arrived at a girl's house on a land line. We had caller ID and if the names didn't match when the call came in we requested to talk to a parent (older siblings didn't count). On the few occasions one was not present they had to wait for us to pick them up outside the house. Waiting can be long when it's -5 outside.
> 
> Dating was almost always a group thing. As I stated before the youngest of our sons went to a private school. The Military Ball and other functions were carefully chaperoned. If they bought tickets the parents were notified. So, if we weren't notified and they told us they were going to some function we knew they were lying. They soon knew not to try that. If they were late in arriving the parents were called. The valet parking was done by volunteer fathers who were really looking for those who had been drinking. If they detected alcohol the parents were called to come pick up their kids.
> 
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> That is why I kept bringing up parental supervision. Our sons, who are now 23, 28, and 31, were never allowed at a girls house without a parent present. The two youngest did have cell phones but were required to call home when they arrived at a girl's house on a land line. We had caller ID and if the names didn't match when the call came in we requested to talk to a parent (older siblings didn't count). On the few occasions one was not present they had to wait for us to pick them up outside the house. Waiting can be long when it's -5 outside.
> 
> Dating was almost always a group thing. As I stated before the youngest of our sons went to a private school. The Military Ball and other functions were carefully chaperoned. If they bought tickets the parents were notified. So, if we weren't notified and they told us they were going to some function we knew they were lying. They soon knew not to try that. If they were late in arriving the parents were called. The valet parking was done by volunteer fathers who were really looking for those who had been drinking. If they detected alcohol the parents were called to come pick up their kids.
> 
> ...


I agree. These children have had their innocent childhood stolen - sex and violence everywhere, guilt trips laid upon them about global warming and recycling and racism and a myriad of other "causes." 
When I was a child, I was protected from adult worries and adult activities. No wonder these kids run to the electronic devices to distract themselves from the world they live in.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> That is why I kept bringing up parental supervision. Our sons, who are now 23, 28, and 31, were never allowed at a girls house without a parent present. The two youngest did have cell phones but were required to call home when they arrived at a girl's house on a land line. We had caller ID and if the names didn't match when the call came in we requested to talk to a parent (older siblings didn't count). On the few occasions one was not present they had to wait for us to pick them up outside the house. Waiting can be long when it's -5 outside.
> 
> Dating was almost always a group thing. As I stated before the youngest of our sons went to a private school. The Military Ball and other functions were carefully chaperoned. If they bought tickets the parents were notified. So, if we weren't notified and they told us they were going to some function we knew they were lying. They soon knew not to try that. If they were late in arriving the parents were called. The valet parking was done by volunteer fathers who were really looking for those who had been drinking. If they detected alcohol the parents were called to come pick up their kids.
> 
> ...


Thumper5316,

I agree. These children have had their innocent childhood stolen from them - sex and violence everywhere, guilt trips laid upon them about global warming and recycling, racism and overeating, and a myriad of other "causes."

When I was a child, I was protected from adult worries and adult activities. No wonder these kids run to the electronic devices to distract themselves from the world they live in.  They should be enjoying life - the great outdoors, Grandma's cookies, sunshine, jumping in puddles, running with playmates, and playing with puppies. A friend gave me a sign for my playroom - "Let them be little." We should guide and protect and love.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

My boys knew that trust was not given. It was earned.

My house, too, was the house they loved to go to. They knew that they would get well fed, treated with respect, and made to feel at home. I, however, made it clear that I had expectations. Girls that showed up with little clothes on were given something to wear in my home. The boys were given belts if their underwear was hanging out.

I made it clear that I was not their friend, I was the mother of their friend. For several of them I was more of a mother than their own mother who didn't seem to care what they did. I trusted them...within reason.

Yes, parenting styles may differ but kids don't. They will continue to get away with as much as possible and parents need to try and stop them.



pardoquilts said:


> My kids are now all over 30, but my ideas of supervision during teenage years was a little different. We lived directly behind the high school, I was able to be a stay-at-home mom, and my kids were encouraged to bring their friends over whenever they wanted. I did not have any rules about open doors, but the kids, including my own, who spent countless hours at my house, eating my food, and talking to me - and each other - knew that I trusted them to behave in a civilized manner. After they grew up, my own kids told me, independently of each other, that the meanest thing I ever did as a parent was to trust them! They knew that if I lost trust in them, they would lose something precious. Their friends were also incredibly considerate of me and our home, and about a dozen of them attended my wedding when I remarried. I also noticed that the kids whose parents rode them the hardest were often the ones who went crazy when they went away to college. I'm not saying one method is better than another, and you do have to have a good feel for your own kids personalities. But my sons and daughter are all responsibile, productive adults, with families of their own. Two of them have advanced degrees, they all live within their means, and I will be very curious to see how they handle the adolescence of their own kids. I think that ultimately a parent's responsibility is to create the internal morality that is needed to be successful adults - however you define morality.
> 
> 
> thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Thumper, I honestly believe they need to learn to stop themselves, and they can't figure out how to do that if a parent is constantly in their face. Worked for me, anyway.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know the best solutions for dealing with poverty, but I do believe it has to be up to the government to intervene. There are no easy answers. I do believe we have to help people to get out of poverty through education and job training. They need food, childcare, rent money to be able to exist while they are trying to better themselves. I think it's very difficult to get out of the poverty cycle, especially when people have been there for a generation. We have to believe that there are many who succeed even though many are left behind for one reason or another. i think that our government has to help people break that cycle. It's the only way.
> ...


 :thumbup:


----------



## Omnivore (Apr 16, 2012)

Auntie Joy doesn't drive as she doesn't need to, and neither do I : )


Janeway said:


> Omnivore said:
> 
> 
> > Here's some of my family-members at a recent picnic where Aunty Joy's using a tool to bash-in nuts to get at the meat inside. Little Benjamin's our pride and joy and a tribute to prolonged breast-feeding.
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

I absolutely agree 100%. However, it's up to us, as the adults, to decide which situations are safe enough for us to back away from and let them take any resulting lumps.



pardoquilts said:


> Thumper, I honestly believe they need to learn to stop themselves, and they can't figure out how to do that if a parent is constantly in their face. Worked for me, anyway.


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Susan ..We all do it. I call it opening my mouth before my brain is in gear. So you're not the Lone Ranger. And Thumper I am thankful I have never had to deal with anything near similar to what you went through. Thoughts and blessings with you.


susanmos2000 said:


> RUKnitting said:
> 
> 
> > And how do you come to your conclusions based on the information given? You certainly have made a lot of assumptions.
> ...


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Boy I would insist on sitting in on that class. Most importantly because I would need to know if it compromises our family values in any way. And secondarily to be prepared for any questions that will come up at the dinner table.


susanmos2000 said:


> > Now the liberal minded want us to supply the kiddies with the birth control as well.
> >
> >
> > > Talk about coincidences...my eleven year-old son is having his first sex-ed talk at school today. The funny thing is that even though I signed a permission slip to allow him to hear all this I really was only given vague details about what exactly the program covers. Apparently the kiddie grapevine has been working overtime...much excited speculation that they'll be show condoms or something equally racy. The benefits/disadvantages of such programs are debatable, but there's no doubt that even pre-teens are intensely interested in the subject.


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

I do not share your confidence level and am not sure.


Lukelucy said:


> A lot of misinformation circulates amongst the kids. They need to be informed and many parents don't do their jobs by informing. It is a good thing. I am sure will be appropriate.


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

RUKnitting said:


> Country Bumpkins said:
> 
> 
> > soloweygirl said:
> ...


Years ago, the answer was thought to be education. I think it still is, but it will take a lot of money and commitment and has to involve families living in poverty, not just the children. It seems if we could take one family and educate the parents, help them find work, teach them the value of education and help them get their kids educated, we might break the chain of life in poverty - for that one family. How do we do it for many? Poverty has so many challenges -not just money - but neighborhood, education, values, friends, relatives, etc.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > That is why I kept bringing up parental supervision. Our sons, who are now 23, 28, and 31, were never allowed at a girls house without a parent present. The two youngest did have cell phones but were required to call home when they arrived at a girl's house on a land line. We had caller ID and if the names didn't match when the call came in we requested to talk to a parent (older siblings didn't count). On the few occasions one was not present they had to wait for us to pick them up outside the house. Waiting can be long when it's -5 outside.
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: and strong parent involvement is key. Unfortunately those who are working long hours or more than one job don't always have the energy or ability to be present to do the monitoring necessarily. I had parents of my middle-schoolers tell me how happy that the kids were in middle school and now they could get a job because the kids didn't need them home after school...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

It won't matter what the govt. does without committed parent involvement. Look at the charter schools in Harlem and other historically problem areas. Parent(s) MUST commit and are held to their promise, and there is tremendous success for those students. It should be a model across the country for ALL schools.


bonbf3 said:


> RUKnitting said:
> 
> 
> > Country Bumpkins said:
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

In most school districts all curriculum - and sex-ed falls into that category- must be presented and apporved by the school board. Call them if you don't feel you are being given enough info. Schools have been sued for not doing all is necessary to get information to the parents.



RUKnitting said:


> Boy I would insist on sitting in on that class. Most importantly because I would need to know if it compromises our family values in any way. And secondarily to be prepared for any questions that will come up at the dinner table.
> 
> 
> susanmos2000 said:
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Both my husband and I worked. We just made sure that we found jobs where we could arrange our schedule around our kids' schedule. If we couldn't we didn't work there. I had some pretty crappy, low-paying jobs during that time but we managed.

It's exactly that kind of attitude that is allowing kids to get into trouble that is life altering.



momeee said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

momeee said:


> In most school districts all curriculum - and sex-ed falls into that category- must be presented and apporved by the school board. Call them if you don't feel you are being given enough info. Schools have been sued for not doing all is necessary to get information to the parents.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Right. The government is not helping people. It is keeping a ton of people dependent.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Susanmos - This is typical of the "bury your head in the sand" way of raising children. If you pretend you can't see it, you won't hve to deal with it. Even if they don't want their kids to take the class - and parents always have the opt out option - why not just stick to your guns and say that? I don't get it.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

OH the children...............................

Another American Green company (Fisker) is being sold to China. Billions went to them as part of the stimulus package that would save our country and the environment. 

Think of all the doctor visits that money would have covered. Think of all the food it could have provided
Think, maybe we could have a financial cliff in a few days

Whatta leader


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

RUKnitting said:


> Boy I would insist on sitting in on that class. Most importantly because I would need to know if it compromises our family values in any way. And secondarily to be prepared for any questions that will come up at the dinner table.
> 
> 
> susanmos2000 said:
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

off2knit said:


> OH the children...............................
> 
> Another American Green company (Fisker) is being sold to China. Billions went to them as part of the stimulus package that would save our country and the environment.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> OH the children...............................
> 
> Another American Green company (Fisker) is being sold to China. Billions went to them as part of the stimulus package that would save our country and the environment.
> 
> ...


Free Enterprise, gotta love it..


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> OH the children...............................
> 
> Another American Green company (Fisker) is being sold to China. Billions went to them as part of the stimulus package that would save our country and the environment.
> 
> ...


$536 million


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Susanmos - This is typical of the "bury your head in the sand" way of raising children. If you pretend you can't see it, you won't hve to deal with it. Even if they don't want their kids to take the class - and parents always have the opt out option - why not just stick to your guns and say that? I don't get it.


I think I do...or at least am willing to hazard a guess. This is a charter school, and the waiting list is 2+ years long. Despite the school's liberal curriculum a lot of the kids come from very religious families--quite a few head scarves on the Muslim moms, much crossing of themselves by the Catholics, and Evangelical Christians who positively clank with crosses.

I rather suspect all these parents are upset about what they think their kids might hear but afraid to tell the administration so for fear of being accused of not "going along with the program". It's very hard for me to believe a kid would be bounced from the school for failing to participate in the sex-ed program, but then kids floundering in class are warned in ominous tones that they're "failing to uphold the school's academic standards". Guaranteed reaction from the parents--they usually freak over the implications of this and do everything in their power to get the grades back up.

As for myself, I have no problem with the sex ed curriculum. I'd rather my son get the correct information--even if it comes with a few tidbits I don't necessarily agree with--than be taught nothing at all. Parents can always address the faults and flaws of the curriculum at home, but there's certainly no fix for diseases like AIDS.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Things are getting worse for our country. After watching the news, I am frightened. 

Thank you Obama for sinking us in deeper.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Oh, please, isn't there anyone else to blame? The House? The Senate? The Supreme Court? God? Wall Street? Murderers? UFO's? The Tides? The Moon?
Crazy People? corporations? Unions? Abraham Lincoln? Education? Grover Norquist? Can we spread it around a little? Just a tiny bit?


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

alcameron said:


> Oh, please, isn't there anyone else to blame? The House? The Senate? The Supreme Court? God? Wall Street? Murderers? UFO's? The Tides? The Moon?
> Crazy People? corporations? Unions? Abraham Lincoln? Education? Grover Norquist? Can we spread it around a little? Just a tiny bit?


Nope.

His stimulus, he owns it.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

What's the next, new topic, Ladies?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> What's the next, new topic, Ladies?


Let's knit! What are you making?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

This was alumni night at my university recently. Hope it comes through.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I'm making two little purses for the little twins next door, and I've just finished a hat for a niece in Minnesota and another for my son. No big project going right now.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

And is that you?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> And is that you?


Yep fat and all!


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

No, it'a very nice picture. We aren't 30 anymore and our bodies are "mature."


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Hi Jane. Looking good!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Thanks for compliments, now to get some energy back. Doing physical therapy Mon, Wed and Fri so it is helping.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

momeee said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > thumper5316 said:
> ...


I've heard that too. They need you AT LEAST as much in middle school.


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Jane You're beautiful and the food doesn't look bad either. Where are the cookies?


Janeway said:


> Thanks for compliments, now to get some energy back. Doing physical therapy Mon, Wed and Fri so it is helping.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

RUKnitting said:


> Jane You're beautiful and the food doesn't look bad either. Where are the cookies?
> 
> 
> Janeway said:
> ...


They didn't serve cookies, just shrimp, cheese, crackers and fruit drink (it is affiliated with the Methodist Church) so liquor is never served. I don't even drink wine with all of the meds I take.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Jane, just saw your picture!!!! You look wonderful! It's so nice to see you after reading your posts for all this time. What a treat - thanks for posting.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Great pic, and looks like a nice event. Great to be able to stay in touch years later, isn't it? Was it a reunion or are you involved at some level? At one point in her life my mother was a member of the Methodist Church so I was aware of the no-liquor thing which was fine with her. She was a character... also was a member of the Baptist Church( at least I think it was that) and there was no dancing and playing cards so she changed churches as she and my dad loved to dance.


Janeway said:


> RUKnitting said:
> 
> 
> > Jane You're beautiful and the food doesn't look bad either. Where are the cookies?
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Don't forget Democrats, liberals and the Tooth Fairy!


alcameron said:


> Oh, please, isn't there anyone else to blame? The House? The Senate? The Supreme Court? God? Wall Street? Murderers? UFO's? The Tides? The Moon?
> Crazy People? corporations? Unions? Abraham Lincoln? Education? Grover Norquist? Can we spread it around a little? Just a tiny bit?


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Hey, at least you have to give something substantive to the tooth fairy in order to get something in return!



pardoquilts said:


> Don't forget Democrats, liberals and the Tooth Fairy!
> 
> 
> alcameron said:
> ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

momeee said:


> Great pic, and looks like a nice event. Great to be able to stay in touch years later, isn't it? Was it a reunion or are you involved at some level? At one point in her life my mother was a member of the Methodist Church so I was aware of the no-liquor thing which was fine with her. She was a character... also was a member of the Baptist Church( at least I think it was that) and there was no dancing and playing cards so she changed churches as she and my dad loved to dance.
> 
> 
> Janeway said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Oh, and Bill and Hilary, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and Roselyn, but NOT Ronnie and Nancy, George and Barbara, George and Laura.


alcameron said:


> Oh, please, isn't there anyone else to blame? The House? The Senate? The Supreme Court? God? Wall Street? Murderers? UFO's? The Tides? The Moon?
> Crazy People? corporations? Unions? Abraham Lincoln? Education? Grover Norquist? Can we spread it around a little? Just a tiny bit?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Jane, just saw your picture!!!! You look wonderful! It's so nice to see you after reading your posts for all this time. What a treat - thanks for posting.


Thanks as took Ipad with me so took pics then did not know how to post them, but grands helped. Now to learn how to put in Avatar pics! Lots to learn! You ladies are great--thanks for kind words. Hugs


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

I blame everything on my cats. They have no idea I do this, but it has the added benefit of keeping my blood pressure where it should be. You've got to have a little humor to survive the way the world is today. I'm not entirely silly. I get serious, too, about figuring out who to blame for what)


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> I blame everything on my cats. They have no idea I do this, but it has the added benefit of keeping my blood pressure where it should be. You've got to have a little humor to survive the way the world is today. I'm not entirely silly. I get serious, too, about figuring out who to blame for what)


Great idea! I don't have cats - could I blame yours? Just kidding - I'll blame my squirrels who come and eat the bird seed.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

My husband like to lay the blame for things on the corporations and/or military/industrial complex. He also has this theory that one or two "big brains" are controlling the world by manipulating the economy in various evil ways. It makes him sound like a screwball, but he did grow up in Eastern Europe and views capitalism with a cynical eye. It doesn't help a bit when I point out that American capitalism got him his luxury car, cushy managerial job in the wine industry etc etc. I'm a liberal Democrat (hiss!) and believe this country could stand some improvement, but even I know to zip my lip at times (sigh)...


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

This picture made me hungry. Looks great.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, please, isn't there anyone else to blame? The House? The Senate? The Supreme Court? God? Wall Street? Murderers? UFO's? The Tides? The Moon?
> ...


The Sky is Falling!!! Obama is President!!!


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Yes.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


 For the next four years!!!!!!!!!


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Oh dear, what are we to do? I know, let's blame Everything on him! There's no one else in Washington who is to blame, and Fox news tells us how bad things really are, must be BHO...


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Yes, the sky has fallen.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Nope, just a meteorite - and it was in Russia!


Lukelucy said:


> Yes, the sky has fallen.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Bonbf3, you can blame my cats all you want to,and I'll blame the squirrels for the really serious stuff because they such pests in the garden and at my bird feeders.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Who to blame? Remember the Hermanator, Herman Cain, GOP hopeful? He said, and my husband adopted, "Blame yourself!"


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Anyone here on Medicare? When I started reading this AM , I thought: "weren't we alerted to this possibility prior to the election?" No one cared....

With Election Over, Obama Announces Medicare Cuts to Fund ObamaCare

During the 2012 election campaign, Democrats denied that ObamaCare made $716 billion in cuts to Medicare in order to provide funding toward $1.9 trillion in new entitlement spending over the next ten years. 
In an announcement on Friday, however, the Obama administration revealed that it would be significantly reducing funding for Medicare, a move that one health insurance analyst said would turn almost every plan in the industry unprofitable.
Health insurance stocks tumbled following the announcement that a big chunk of the Medicare cuts would come from the popular Medicare Advantage program, a market-oriented system in which participants can choose coverage by a private company that contracts with Medicare to provide all Part A and Part B benefits. 
According to health care analyst Carl McDonald, the new rates proposed by the Obama administration will have the net effect of reducing payments to Medicare Advantage plans by seven to eight percent in 2014. McDonald projects: 
If implemented, these rates and the program changes CMS [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] is suggesting would be enormously disruptive to Medicare Advantage, likely forcing a number of smaller plans out of the business and creating disarray for many seniors. 
According to Richard Foster, former chief actuary to the Medicare program, ObamaCares cuts to Medicare Advantage will likely force half of its current participants back into the old Medicare program, originated in 1965. It is estimated that this change will cost Medicare enrollees an average of $3,714 in 2017 alone.



rocky1991 said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

There we go. Another example of Obama ruining America.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Bonbf3, you can blame my cats all you want to,and I'll blame the squirrels for the really serious stuff because they such pests in the garden and at my bird feeders.


They are pests. But if the cardinals are eating when a squirrel comes up to join them, the cardinals stay and eat. If a cute little chipmunk comes up, the cardinals chase him away! 
:shock: 
There's just no accounting for taste. :-D


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> There we go. Another example of Obama ruining America.


Amen! Last Oct. I was in ER with BP high enough to kill me, dizzy with a skull splitting headache so since I'm high risk they put me on heart monitor, etc., and lots of other tests and the bill was around $2,500.

The shock came when Medicare only approved $275.00 so the hospital was stuck with the bill! I have protested the bill but have not heard from them yet. I know the ER has to take me when I'm ill, but this is not fair!

Obocare was already approved and into effect!

So all of you Obo supporters just wait until you have to start paying more then see how you feel.

The hospital cannot bill me because I'm on Disability Medicare, but why should they suffer the consequences!

I have pulmonary hypertension and would need both heart/lung transplant which I have denied because of both age/survival rate so will take whatever life God has for me.

So bad mouth me if you Obo supporters want, but hope you do not get stuck paying big bills with medical care. Oh, my secondary insurance monthly bill went up and coverage is less--more co-pay for each doctor visit.

It may not be long before I will be using the money from this 60+year old house for more than shelter.

Went to an attorney for information and she recommended my husband and I divorce so I could get help with the coming medical bills!

What a crock of Sh**! Can anyone believe this is happening in America where we have worked hard all our lives, paid to educate our girls, then advised to divorce!

We are not taking that route as I and DH don't want to be divorced at this stage of our lives.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> This picture made me hungry. Looks great.


Yes this is the university where I graduated and they send invitations out for a few years at a time for certain events. Of course it is a fund raiser too, but I only gave $25.00 as don't have much to give but this was for scholarships so it was for a good cause!

Darn, it is so tough being born beautiful instead of rich! Big Ha, Ha! Just kidding of course!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Janeway said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > There we go. Another example of Obama ruining America.
> ...


And people have expressed doubt that the #1 cause of bankruptcy is really medical expenses? Serious and/or chronic illness can wipe anyone out financially, even when they have insurance.


----------



## spinninggoddess (Jan 4, 2013)

Was just wondering with the 'cliff' about to arrive.....

Would it be a good idea to let Obama choose the programs that should be cut? Like a line item veto?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

spinninggoddess said:


> Was just wondering with the 'cliff' about to arrive.....
> 
> Would it be a good idea to let Obama choose the programs that should be cut? Like a line item veto?


That sounds like heresy to me :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

People who elected BO don't know what they did to themselves. But, they'll find out.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janeway said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > There we go. Another example of Obama ruining America.
> ...


Good for you, Janeway! How awful that she would advise divorce - just going by the letter of the law, I guess.

No, I can't believe that we are all in a terrible situation because people were tricked into voting for this dishonest (sorry - I have to say it) President who lied about obamacare and continues to lie to the American people - and so do those in his administration. Those who don't see it either can't allow themselves to face it because it's too painful or refuse to look.

I've tried to be civil about obama, but the more I see and hear, the more impossible it becomes.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > Lukelucy said:
> ...


I think that Medicare Avantage was reimbursed for more than regular Medicare, therefore losing lots of money.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

You may find it interesting that President Eisenhower invented the phrase "military/industrial complex". It was part of a speech he made which I haven't got the transcript of. I'm sure someone more diligent than I can find it. Eisenhower was a busy little bee. He added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegence. I guess something that happened almost 60 years ago seems iike ancient history for some people. It seems very recent to me. Your husband may sound like a screwball, but the perspective of someone from Eastern Europe, or many other people from other countries, is well worth listening to.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > Lukelucy said:
> ...


You only told what a lot of us are thinking and feeling. :thumbup:


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

I am voting that Obama must personally approve of every budget cut. I want him to finally act like a leader instead of a campaigner.

Time for him to man up and grow up, and take responsiblity for his proposed, promoted and his signed initiative. Or will this be Bush's fault too? snort


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Snort.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> You may find it interesting that President Eisenhower invented the phrase "military/industrial complex". It was part of a speech he made which I haven't got the transcript of. I'm sure someone more diligent than I can find it. Eisenhower was a busy little bee. He added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegence. I guess something that happened almost 60 years ago seems iike ancient history for some people. It seems very recent to me. Your husband may sound like a screwball, but the perspective of someone from Eastern Europe, or many other people from other countries, is well worth listening to.


That's so true.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

More and more providers are electing to not participate with Medicare and Medicaid. I know of several that are no longer accepting new patients covered by the plans and MSHO plans which are the replacement plans. The ones that can least afford to keep them as the bulk of their patient load are the ones stuck with them such as GPs and Internal Medicine.

A I've stated before what good is having insurance if nobody accepts it?


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

I don't think people realize the consequences of the ineptitude and untruths: Having Added Record $5.9T to Debt, Obama Claims Hes Cut Deficit $2.5T Federal spending and federal deficits have both increased sharply under President Obama. In fiscal 2008, the last full fiscal year before Obama took office, the federal government spent $2.9716 trillion. In fiscal 2012, the federal government spent $3.538 trillion.



off2knit said:


> I am voting that Obama must personally approve of every budget cut. I want him to finally act like a leader instead of a campaigner.
> 
> Time for him to man up and grow up, and take responsiblity for his proposed, promoted and his signed initiative. Or will this be Bush's fault too? snort


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Off2knit,

Right on. I'm with you. Time he took responsibility and stopped campaigning. Really, he should be gone.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

The President was elected by a majority of the electorate. He will be gone - in four years. Meanwhile, what if everyone, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, came to their senses and actually got something done in Washington? Nobody is without fault in this. Nobody!

The Medicare you are so desperate to save was put in place during a Democratic administration. It could not have been crafted without the cooperation of both sides of the aisle. I think one of the most frustrating things to many liberals, or at least this one, is that Congress seems to have lost sight of the fact that they are supposed to be working together for the overall good of the country. Many representatives, from both parties, seem to have a "my way or the highway" attitude, and there rarely seems to be a sense that the other side is made up of people with good intentions. It doesn't help that the stated intent of the Republicans, for most of the first four years of the Obama administration, was to make President Obama a one-term president. That stated goal could only have one effect on Democrats - to make them defensive before anything had actually been done. Wouldn't it have been better to expend all that energy and money to find ways to solve some of our problems?



Lukelucy said:


> Off2knit,
> 
> Right on. I'm with you. Time he took responsibility and stopped campaigning. Really, he should be gone.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> You may find it interesting that President Eisenhower invented the phrase "military/industrial complex". It was part of a speech he made which I haven't got the transcript of. I'm sure someone more diligent than I can find it. Eisenhower was a busy little bee. He added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegence. I guess something that happened almost 60 years ago seems iike ancient history for some people. It seems very recent to me. Your husband may sound like a screwball, but the perspective of someone from Eastern Europe, or many other people from other countries, is well worth listening to.


That's true, it's always valuable to hear politics and such discussed from an alternate viewpoint. He has a lot of interesting insights, and we do have some lively discussions on occasion. But some words and phrases are so overused and so meaningless they're practically a guarantee that people are not going to take you seriously--kind of like showing up for a job interview with a spot on one's tie. If something can be neither proved nor disproved it's a waste of time to even discuss it.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

As for Obama, yes I actually think the Republicans on the site have a point when they say he's unfit to lead the country--anyone willing to be President when the economy is such a mess must have rocks in his head. As much as the GOP moans about losing the last two elections, I can't help thinking they got lucky. The Republican party talks endlessly about how their policies can "turn this country around"--well, I hope folks call their bluff at some point and give them the chance they so desperately crave. The nation could use a good laugh.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Unfortunately, Susan, I think that scenario would not be funny at all.


susanmos2000 said:


> As for Obama, yes I actually think the Republicans on the site have a point when they say he's unfit to lead the country--anyone willing to be President when the economy is such a mess must have rocks in his head. As much as the GOP moans about losing the last two elections, I can't help thinking they got lucky. The Republican party talks endlessly about how their policies can "turn this country around"--well, I hope folks call their bluff at some point and give them the chance they so desperately crave. The nation could use a good laugh.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> More and more providers are electing to not participate with Medicare and Medicaid. I know of several that are no longer accepting new patients covered by the plans and MSHO plans which are the replacement plans. The ones that can least afford to keep them as the bulk of their patient load are the ones stuck with them such as GPs and Internal Medicine.
> 
> A I've stated before what good is having insurance if nobody accepts it?


True. I tried to get a doctor from Emory here in Atlanta -big prestigious medical school and university hospital. Couldn't find one. Tried my friend's doctor there - she had moved her office to a different floor in the building and was accepting only one kind of insurance - Etna. Don't get sick.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > Janeway said:
> ...


Thanks, Yarnie.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

my doctor told me to go to the emergency room. I was very, very sick and he would not see me. Thanks Obama.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Perhaps he sent you to the ER because they are much better equipped to deal with a very, very sick person. My doctor has said that he would prefer to send people there when they are very ill because going to his office just delays treatment that he would have ordered anyway.


Lukelucy said:


> my doctor told me to go to the emergency room. I was very, very sick and he would not see me. Thanks Obama.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

That is what the nurse said. She said my tests would come back sooner, but I wish I had an option. I know he is over worked.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Most clinics are solidly booked with physicals and non-communicable ailments (chest pains, UTI, etc.) and have no open times for people that get sick. They are usually referred to the ER or Urgent Cares.



pardoquilts said:


> Perhaps he sent you to the ER because they are much better equipped to deal with a very, very sick person. My doctor has said that he would prefer to send people there when they are very ill because going to his office just delays treatment that he would have ordered anyway.
> 
> 
> Lukelucy said:
> ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Perhaps he sent you to the ER because they are much better equipped to deal with a very, very sick person. My doctor has said that he would prefer to send people there when they are very ill because going to his office just delays treatment that he would have ordered anyway.
> 
> 
> Lukelucy said:
> ...


I think you should re-read all of your quotes as "no" matter "what" anyone says about any subject, you disagree!

Your brain must run on a "one" track lane without any different thoughts ever. Do you knit the same things "over and over?"

I'll bet underneath all of your sayings there is a "truly" wonderful person who we have not "met" yet. Can you show her to us?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> Most clinics are solidly booked with physicals and non-communicable ailments (chest pains, UTI, etc.) and have no open times for people that get sick. They are usually referred to the ER or Urgent Cares.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When I was young and got sick, I went to the doctor. My doctor still sees you if you're sick unless it's an emergency.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Janeway, if you are speaking to me, I think you will find that I do tend to disagree with some people most of the time. I am particularly offended by constant attacks on the President and his family which don't have a basis in fact, but are simply rants that appear to me to be hateful and racist. There are also a number of people on this site with whom I agree. I believe you will find that at least I try not to be nasty and mean spirited. There are people with one track minds here - I believe that my comments have covered a wide range of subjects. Is there some particular reason you object to my participation in the conversation, or are you the only person who gets to talk here?


Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps he sent you to the ER because they are much better equipped to deal with a very, very sick person. My doctor has said that he would prefer to send people there when they are very ill because going to his office just delays treatment that he would have ordered anyway.
> ...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Susanmos2000, you yourself used the phrase military/industrial complex on page 69 of this topic, quoting your husband. I stated on page 70 of this topic that President Eisenhower first used the phrase and also was instrumental in adding the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Alliegance. I know this is a very long post, but hope everyone will forgive me for its length.

I find neither of the phrases I remarked on meaningless or overused. I hope the following helps give you some appropriate proof that enables you to find that it isn't a waste of time to discuss these phrases. I happen to believe adding "under God" to the Pledge is a violation of the First Amendment as it contradicts our right to freedom from religion. I find President Eisenhower's use of the phrase "military-industrial complex" impressive when taken in context and meaningful today in light of the ways we are using our Armed Forces in several parts of the world.

Here is a brief history of the Pledge from The Encylopedia Britannica Online:
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was first published in the juvenile periodical The Youths Companion on September 8, 1892, in the following form: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all. The words the flag of the United States of America were substituted for my Flag in 1924, and the pledge was officially recognized by the U.S. government in 1942. In 1954, at President Dwight D. Eisenhowers urging, the Congress legislated that under God be added, making the pledge read:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

A controversy arose concerning the authorship of the pledge of 1892. Claims were made on behalf of both James B. Upham, one of the editors of The Youths Companion, and Francis Bellamy, an assistant editor. In 1939 a committee of the U.S. Flag Association ruled in favour of Bellamy, and a detailed report issued by the U.S. Library of Congress in 1957 supported the committees ruling.

According to the legislation of 1954, citizens should stand upright and place the right hand over the heart while reciting the pledge. Men not in uniform should remove any nonreligious head covering. In 1943 the United States Supreme Court ruled that no person can be required to recite the pledge.

Here is Eisenhowers Farewell Address in which he used the phrase "military-industrial complex":

From OurDocuments.gov
In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech (farewell address, 1961) 
[This is the earliest known use of the term military-industrial complex.]

Transcript of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address (1961)
My fellow Americans:
Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world.

Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small,there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research-these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we which to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs-balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage-balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between action of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that 
known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. 
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we-you and I, and our government-must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war-as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years-I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So-in this my last good night to you as your President-I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find somethings worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I-my fellow citizens-need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing inspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
Transcription courtesy of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Janeway, Was your message meant for me?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Janeway, if you are speaking to me, I think you will find that I do tend to disagree with some people most of the time. I am particularly offended by constant attacks on the President and his family which don't have a basis in fact, but are simply rants that appear to me to be hateful and racist. There are also a number of people on this site with whom I agree. I believe you will find that at least I try not to be nasty and mean spirited. There are people with one track minds here - I believe that my comments have covered a wide range of subjects. Is there some particular reason you object to my participation in the conversation, or are you the only person who gets to talk here?
> 
> 
> Janeway said:
> ...


Yes, I was speaking to you. I don't think anyone on this site who I know is racist towards Pres O, as I don't care if he was "green" I do not care for his policies now or in the past, but usually let people have their say.

No, I'm not the only one who is allowed to talk, but try to stay away from the political arena where some people become hateful when they cannot change my thoughts to their way of thinking.

I vote for the man in any election, but have leaned towards the Republican Party in most elections. In the primary, you "must" be of only party, but in the "main" election, you may split the ticket which I do as sometimes the person running for a party is not my choice!

I'm sure you are a wonderful person, but I was just saying I've not met you yet! I have become friends with people of different political views than I have, but we drop those views and just chat and become acquainted. Nothing wrong with this thinking about people.

We all have a common bond of knitting or we would not be on KP.

Show me some pictures of your crafts or family or whatever as I would love to see them. I posted a few pictures of the last week or two as it was sooooooo good to be out of the house among people again as being house bound for a few months except going to the doctor is not much fun.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Janeway, Was your message meant for me?


No, but hello just the same. The messages become sooooo long that it is hard to know who said what. How are you today?

We had .5 of ice then .5 of snow followed by freezing rain so I'm housebound again. How is your weather?


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

I don't think I've ever gotten in to see my doctor for a same day appointment when I've been sick. One time I was so disgusted I was going to change clinics. I could change clinic within the same network but would not have been able to stay at the hospital. I keep thinking that if obamacare is any more restrictive we are all screwed.



bonbf3 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > Most clinics are solidly booked with physicals and non-communicable ailments (chest pains, UTI, etc.) and have no open times for people that get sick. They are usually referred to the ER or Urgent Cares.
> ...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Had to move back to California at the beginning of the year, as the weather is milder and my mother needs that. However, I am still SeattleSoul, if in spirit only. It's taken me awhile to admit to my new location.  :thumbdown:


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> The President was elected by a majority of the electorate. He will be gone - in four years. Meanwhile, what if everyone, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, came to their senses and actually got something done in Washington? Nobody is without fault in this. Nobody!


He should have never been reelected. He was the wrong thing the first time around and is proving to be even worse this time. He will have four more years to further prove his incompetence and it will take us just that much longer to correct the damage that he continues to inflict on us all.

I do agree that everyone should come to their senses. Come to their senses and block everything that this tool in the WH proposes. He is spending us into oblivion and leading us further down a collectivism path instead of the personal freedom path on which this great country was founded.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Thumper - Please keep a civil tongue in your head. You are welcome to disagree with the President, you are welcome to express that opinion, but it is highly offensive to call the President names. It is people like you, who think calling names is discourse, that have caused a lack of progress in this country.


thumper5316 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > The President was elected by a majority of the electorate. He will be gone - in four years. Meanwhile, what if everyone, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, came to their senses and actually got something done in Washington? Nobody is without fault in this. Nobody!
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Thumper, I agree with you and would like to add...While I didn't vote for O the 1st time around, I did have high hopes that he could do what he promised, and was pleased that America could elect a bi-racial man...even tho' I had doubts after reading about his history, associations, lack of experience, etc., I was hopeful and willing to give him a chance. Fast forward to the 2nd term...his campaign promises went unfulfilled, nothing accomplished but more debt and policies that clearly favored a population which would provide him with votes, and be costly to America in many ways. His new promises were the same old ones, and I completely lost confidence in anything he said given the disastrous 1st term, especially since during his 1st two years he should have had the support of both the house and senate. Yes, Pardoquilts, he is here for 4 more years. Heaven help us! Work together - I agree...eliminate all parties and have politicians work for the good of the nation and to help all Americans. Put our country first. He is divisive and talks out of both sides of his mouth ( yes from WH staff) so I am terrified for where we'll be in 2016 - a bankrupt nation, dismantled military and a nation divided within and threatened from afar. This is not my America.

There is plenty of blame to go around but let's honestly look at where the buck starts and stops and be willing to acknowledge a persons failings even though you voted for him and like him. I know blind loyalty gets one no where; I just wish our politicians realized that.



thumper5316 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > The President was elected by a majority of the electorate. He will be gone - in four years. Meanwhile, what if everyone, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, came to their senses and actually got something done in Washington? Nobody is without fault in this. Nobody!
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

I am being civil.



pardoquilts said:


> Thumper - Please keep a civil tongue in your head. You are welcome to disagree with the President, you are welcome to express that opinion, but it is highly offensive to call the President names. It is people like you, who think calling names is discourse, that have caused a lack of progress in this country.
> 
> 
> thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

momeee said:


> Thumper, I agree with you and would like to add...While I didn't vote for O the 1st time around, I did have high hopes that he could do what he promised, and was pleased that America could elect a bi-racial man...even tho' I had doubts after reading about his history, associations, lack of experience, etc., I was hopeful and willing to give him a chance. Fast forward to the 2nd term...his campaign promises went unfulfilled, nothing accomplished but more debt and policies that clearly favored a population which would provide him with votes, and be costly to America in many ways. His new promises were the same old ones, and I completely lost confidence in anything he said given the disastrous 1st term, especially since during his 1st two years he should have had the support of both the house and senate. Yes, Pardoquilts, he is here for 4 more years. Heaven help us! Work together - I agree...eliminate all parties and have politicians work for the good of the nation and to help all Americans. Put our country first. He is divisive and talks out of both sides of his mouth ( yes from WH staff) so I am terrified for where we'll be in 2016 - a bankrupt nation, dismantled military and a nation divided within and threatened from afar. This is not my America.
> 
> There is plenty of blame to go around but let's honestly look at where the buck starts and stops and be willing to acknowledge a persons failings even though you voted for him and like him. I know blind loyalty gets one no where; I just wish our politicians realized that.
> 
> ...


We are in deep trouble. We can't find out what happened in Benghazi. Not important? What's the difference? Difference between 4 big strong men being alive or being dead. Difference between some guy living his life or sitting in jail for an inflammatory video that did not inflame. Difference between a politician with a history of deception finally telling the truth to the the American people and that same politician carrying on as usual and deceiving the American people and running for the presidency. Difference? The difference between a president who tells the truth to the citizens and a president who cannot be believed on anything because of his repeated lying.

A free society depends on an informed populace. We have many who close their eyes to the truth - and this is the result.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> The President was elected by a majority of the electorate. He will be gone - in four years. Meanwhile, what if everyone, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, came to their senses and actually got something done in Washington? Nobody is without fault in this. Nobody!
> 
> The Medicare you are so desperate to save was put in place during a Democratic administration. It could not have been crafted without the cooperation of both sides of the aisle. I think one of the most frustrating things to many liberals, or at least this one, is that Congress seems to have lost sight of the fact that they are supposed to be working together for the overall good of the country. Many representatives, from both parties, seem to have a "my way or the highway" attitude, and there rarely seems to be a sense that the other side is made up of people with good intentions. It doesn't help that the stated intent of the Republicans, for most of the first four years of the Obama administration, was to make President Obama a one-term president. That stated goal could only have one effect on Democrats - to make them defensive before anything had actually been done. Wouldn't it have been better to expend all that energy and money to find ways to solve some of our problems?
> 
> ...


Question: Wasn't making President Bush (43) a one term president the goal of the Democrats? So why is that an issue?

As to solving problems.....a lot would be solved if the president would propose a written budget to be voted upon. I mean, you can't vote on a speech, which he seems to prefer doing other than working. Is he golfing again with Tiger today? That was so much more important that working on a budget don't you think? Or was it another nap, like the one when Ambassador Stephans and others were murdered, because wouldn't want bags under the eyes during fund raisers would we?

shhhhhh Thumper if you disagree with Pardoquilts that is uncivil. Just thought you should know, in case you didn't get the memo


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Re-read my sentences and miss read one sentence--golly it is a crime when one cannot read correctly what one writes!

His biracial fact does not come into play with the people on this site that I know. It is his lack of leadership in our country!



SeattlrS glad you are settled and back on KP. Wishing you well! Do you have nice weather?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > The President was elected by a majority of the electorate. He will be gone - in four years. Meanwhile, what if everyone, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, came to their senses and actually got something done in Washington? Nobody is without fault in this. Nobody!
> ...


Good golly again! Where did I miss the name calling! I'm really loosing the ability to read!


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > Thumper, I agree with you and would like to add...While I didn't vote for O the 1st time around, I did have high hopes that he could do what he promised, and was pleased that America could elect a bi-racial man...even tho' I had doubts after reading about his history, associations, lack of experience, etc., I was hopeful and willing to give him a chance. Fast forward to the 2nd term...his campaign promises went unfulfilled, nothing accomplished but more debt and policies that clearly favored a population which would provide him with votes, and be costly to America in many ways. His new promises were the same old ones, and I completely lost confidence in anything he said given the disastrous 1st term, especially since during his 1st two years he should have had the support of both the house and senate. Yes, Pardoquilts, he is here for 4 more years. Heaven help us! Work together - I agree...eliminate all parties and have politicians work for the good of the nation and to help all Americans. Put our country first. He is divisive and talks out of both sides of his mouth ( yes from WH staff) so I am terrified for where we'll be in 2016 - a bankrupt nation, dismantled military and a nation divided within and threatened from afar. This is not my America.
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: and I love that you tell it like you see it!


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

momeee said:


> Thumper, I agree with you and would like to add...While I didn't vote for O the 1st time around, I did have high hopes that he could do what he promised, and was pleased that America could elect a bi-racial man...even tho' I had doubts after reading about his history, associations, lack of experience, etc., I was hopeful and willing to give him a chance. Fast forward to the 2nd term...his campaign promises went unfulfilled, nothing accomplished but more debt and policies that clearly favored a population which would provide him with votes, and be costly to America in many ways. His new promises were the same old ones, and I completely lost confidence in anything he said given the disastrous 1st term, especially since during his 1st two years he should have had the support of both the house and senate. Yes, Pardoquilts, he is here for 4 more years. Heaven help us! Work together - I agree...eliminate all parties and have politicians work for the good of the nation and to help all Americans. Put our country first. He is divisive and talks out of both sides of his mouth ( yes from WH staff) so I am terrified for where we'll be in 2016 - a bankrupt nation, dismantled military and a nation divided within and threatened from afar. This is not my America.
> 
> There is plenty of blame to go around but let's honestly look at where the buck starts and stops and be willing to acknowledge a persons failings even though you voted for him and like him. I know blind loyalty gets one no where; I just wish our politicians realized that.
> 
> ...


Thank you. It is time our politicians actually upheld the oath they have taken to uphold the Constitution. They should be protecting America, not leading her down a destructive path.

There should also be term limits. I think our politicians have become too comfortable with their positions and what they get from them.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

momeee said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > momeee said:
> ...


Thanks, Momeee.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

The second sentence of the last paragraph.


Janeway said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> The second sentence of the last paragraph.
> 
> 
> Janeway said:
> ...


Is calling him a "tool" bad?


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Juneway, in my world, calling someone "lazy" which is repeated over and over by some people on this site implies an attitude about black people that I will not let go. The facts about the President's vacation time are available for all to see, and the difference between his three weeks vacation a year and that of President Bush, at fifteen weeks a year, makes it obvious who is lazy. Being upset because Mrs. Obama has travelled with her daughters outside the United States, something many people do, and the way that was expressed, smacks of bigotry.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Yes.


Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > The second sentence of the last paragraph.
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Juneway, in my world, calling someone "lazy" which is repeated over and over by some people on this site implies an attitude about black people that I will not let go. The facts about the President's vacation time are available for all to see, and the difference between his three weeks vacation a year and that of President Bush, at fifteen weeks a year, makes it obvious who is lazy. Being upset because Mrs. Obama has travelled with her daughters outside the United States, something many people do, and the way that was expressed, smacks of bigotry.


Oh, I have to say baloney to that, at least in my world. Do we call you a racist because you don't like the white President Bush? I don't even think about race any more, except when it's brought up by people who calling someone that name. Does anyone? The people who automatically associate the word lazy with black are the ones who are focused on race. Lazy is someone who doesn't go to meetings, who takes lots of time off, who takes lots of vacations, who doesn't do the job - like submitting a budget - for extended periods of time but still has time for an enormous amount of recreation -parties with big-time celebrities and rap singers, golf with infamous players, and LOTS of basketball. Now, when I mentioned golf, was I calling him white? When I mentioned basketball, was I calling him black? I don't care about his race. I would have voted for Herman Cain and listen to him every day here in Atlanta. I hereby declare the race card is obsolete. More whites than blacks voted for Obama. I'm insulted to be called racist or even have it implied. Many of us were very devoted to the cause of civil rights in the '60s, and it is an insult born of ignorance to call us racist. Ignorance being - not an insult - but a state of not knowing. If you don't know people, don't condemn them.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Oh, I so agree that race in this instance is not relevant at all. In VT i see and know many LAZY slugs, and they are caucasian. Lazy is as lazy does. I also think that for whatever reason pardoquilts is overly sensitive to criticism of someone whom she admires. 
No bigotry is intended when we express distress at what we perceive as an abuse of the office regarding how money is being spent along with time away from the job. If evidence of the grandiose lifestyle weren't in our faces, there would be nothing to criticize.



bonbf3 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Juneway, in my world, calling someone "lazy" which is repeated over and over by some people on this site implies an attitude about black people that I will not let go. The facts about the President's vacation time are available for all to see, and the difference between his three weeks vacation a year and that of President Bush, at fifteen weeks a year, makes it obvious who is lazy. Being upset because Mrs. Obama has travelled with her daughters outside the United States, something many people do, and the way that was expressed, smacks of bigotry.
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

momeee said:


> Oh, I so agree that race in this instance is not relevant at all. In VT i see and know many LAZY slugs, and they are caucasian. Lazy is as lazy does. I also think that for whatever reason pardoquilts is overly sensitive to criticism of someone whom she admires.
> No bigotry is intended when we express distress at what we perceive as an abuse of the office regarding how money is being spent along with time away from the job. If evidence of the grandiose lifestyle weren't in our faces, there would be nothing to criticize.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Frankly I've always figured those attacks on Obama's place of birth (Hawaii or the heart of Africa) are veiled attacks against the color of the President's skin, it hadn't occurred to me that all the comments on the site about his laziness and golf playing might possibly be of the same vein.
All Presidents work hard. Period. Most of them appear to have aged 20 years by the time they leave the White House. Only the anti-Os out there can say whether they honestly believe our President spends his days on the couch with his feet up, or whether they're trying to draw attention to the race factor with their complaints.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

I guess I don't want to think that the comments and dislike are racially based. We've come too far since Dr.Martin Luther King fought so hard for civil rights and there have been too many sacrifices in the pursuit of civil right reform to take a step back. I probably should have added that some who see the criticisms as racial bigotry may have experienced such discrimination and as such would easily interpret any criticism as a racial slur, rather than looking beyond it to the facts of the situation. This president has failed on a grand scale.


susanmos2000 said:


> Frankly I've always figured those attacks on Obama's place of birth (Hawaii or the heart of Africa) are veiled attacks against the color of the President's skin, it hadn't occurred to me that all the comments on the site about his laziness and golf playing might possibly be of the same vein.
> All Presidents work hard. Period. Most of them appear to have aged 20 years by the time they leave the White House. Only the anti-Os out there can say whether they honestly believe our President spends his days on the couch with his feet up, or whether they're trying to draw attention to the race factor with their complaints.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

momeee said:


> I guess I don't want to think that the comments and dislike are racially based. We've come too far since Dr.Martin Luther King fought so hard for civil rights and there have been too many sacrifices in the pursuit of civil right reform to take a step back. I probably should have added that some who see the criticisms as racial bigotry may have experienced such discrimination and as such would easily interpret any criticism as a racial slur, rather than looking beyond it to the facts of the situation. This president has failed on a grand scale.
> 
> 
> susanmos2000 said:
> ...


I actually take it as a sign of progress if folks have to use slippery double-talk and hidden meanings to insult the President regarding his skin color. As dreadful (and transparent) as such tactics are, it shows even the most rabid anti-Os have gotten the message that outright racial bigotry and epithets are no longer acceptable in our society.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I don't understand the references to being lazy when the facts are quite the opposite. Please tell me your sources for the comments about a grandiose lifestyle. I just don't see it anywhere in respected news sources. I don't know that I am "overly sensitive". A whole lot of people don't see the implications of language that they consider to be okay to use.


momeee said:


> Oh, I so agree that race in this instance is not relevant at all. In VT i see and know many LAZY slugs, and they are caucasian. Lazy is as lazy does. I also think that for whatever reason pardoquilts is overly sensitive to criticism of someone whom she admires.
> No bigotry is intended when we express distress at what we perceive as an abuse of the office regarding how money is being spent along with time away from the job. If evidence of the grandiose lifestyle weren't in our faces, there would be nothing to criticize.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

The reason California is called the "Golden State" is that nobody had the guts to call it what it really is, "The Brown State". At this time of year everthing is lovely and green. By the end of April all the hills and grass covered areas with be parched and brown. The reason California is such an agricultuaral wonder is because it steals (legally...) water from all its neighbors so the Sacramento and San Juaquin Valleys aren't the desserts they once were. Pat Brown, our current governor's father, pushed through an amazing plan to provide sufficient water to California. Turn off that imported water and there'd be a big, fat dessert here. Thant's my ranting and raving supported by a great deal of historical info that, once again, I am too lazy to find attributions for.

That being said, the weather is lovely today. We had a bit of rain yesterday so the smog is washed away and the sky is an nincredible pure blue. Please pardon all my typos as I'm writing this on the fly. I have to take my diabetic cat to the vet in a little while and am pretty concerned about what the test results will be. He finally seems to be stabilizing and I sure do hope he stays that way.

Even better, I got all the ingredients for a tasty Chinese dinner sliced and diced. It's going to be Egg Foo Young (I spell this wrong, I know) and Sweet and Sour Pork over wilted spinach. I've made this frequently so I can say it will be yummy.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> I don't understand the references to being lazy when the facts are quite the opposite. Please tell me your sources for the comments about a grandiose lifestyle. I just don't see it anywhere in respected news sources. I don't know that I am "overly sensitive". A whole lot of people don't see the implications of language that they consider to be okay to use.
> 
> 
> > I don't think you're oversensitive in the least...it is hard to avoid coming to certain conclusions when people go on and on about the "lazy" President and his "decadent" lifestyle. All this stuff is a matter of public record: the President's vacation schedule, his tax returns etc etc. I hate to say it, but it appears that some folks out there think that a certain person has gotten too "uppity" and forgotten who his betters are.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Tool (noun) - A device or implement used to carry out a particular function.

I have often wondered who is pulling his strings. The man doesn't have enough brains to act on his own.



pardoquilts said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> Janeway said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > The President was elected by a majority of the electorate. He will be gone - in four years. Meanwhile, what if everyone, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, came to their senses and actually got something done in Washington? Nobody is without fault in this. Nobody!
> ...


Gee Thumper......some one could get the idea that you don't like Obam avery much. And by the way, they are blocking evething that he proposes. Listen to Fox News much?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

momeee said:


> Thumper, I agree with you and would like to add...While I didn't vote for O the 1st time around, I did have high hopes that he could do what he promised, and was pleased that America could elect a bi-racial man...even tho' I had doubts after reading about his history, associations, lack of experience, etc., I was hopeful and willing to give him a chance. Fast forward to the 2nd term...his campaign promises went unfulfilled, nothing accomplished but more debt and policies that clearly favored a population which would provide him with votes, and be costly to America in many ways. His new promises were the same old ones, and I completely lost confidence in anything he said given the disastrous 1st term, especially since during his 1st two years he should have had the support of both the house and senate. Yes, Pardoquilts, he is here for 4 more years. Heaven help us! Work together - I agree...eliminate all parties and have politicians work for the good of the nation and to help all Americans. Put our country first. He is divisive and talks out of both sides of his mouth ( yes from WH staff) so I am terrified for where we'll be in 2016 - a bankrupt nation, dismantled military and a nation divided within and threatened from afar. This is not my America.
> 
> There is plenty of blame to go around but let's honestly look at where the buck starts and stops and be willing to acknowledge a persons failings even though you voted for him and like him. I know blind loyalty gets one no where; I just wish our politicians realized that.
> 
> ...


A Fox News listener. Did you hear that Rush is ashamed of this country, perhaps you and he could nove elsewhere so you wouldn't have to deal with Obama.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > Thumper, I agree with you and would like to add...While I didn't vote for O the 1st time around, I did have high hopes that he could do what he promised, and was pleased that America could elect a bi-racial man...even tho' I had doubts after reading about his history, associations, lack of experience, etc., I was hopeful and willing to give him a chance. Fast forward to the 2nd term...his campaign promises went unfulfilled, nothing accomplished but more debt and policies that clearly favored a population which would provide him with votes, and be costly to America in many ways. His new promises were the same old ones, and I completely lost confidence in anything he said given the disastrous 1st term, especially since during his 1st two years he should have had the support of both the house and senate. Yes, Pardoquilts, he is here for 4 more years. Heaven help us! Work together - I agree...eliminate all parties and have politicians work for the good of the nation and to help all Americans. Put our country first. He is divisive and talks out of both sides of his mouth ( yes from WH staff) so I am terrified for where we'll be in 2016 - a bankrupt nation, dismantled military and a nation divided within and threatened from afar. This is not my America.
> ...


Another conspiracy theorist. Get off the Rep talking points.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > The second sentence of the last paragraph.
> ...


Ya think??


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> Juneway, in my world, calling someone "lazy" which is repeated over and over by some people on this site implies an attitude about black people that I will not let go. The facts about the President's vacation time are available for all to see, and the difference between his three weeks vacation a year and that of President Bush, at fifteen weeks a year, makes it obvious who is lazy. Being upset because Mrs. Obama has travelled with her daughters outside the United States, something many people do, and the way that was expressed, smacks of bigotry.


Are you totally insane or are you illiterate because I can think of no other reason for you equating lazy with being black. But if you are calling Bush lazy for going to his home (not mooching off the tax payers or elite friends), then you must be a racist against white people from Texas. Let us remember that when President Bush went to Texas, the ranch was secure and hardly any expense to the American people. Vs Biden spending millions to get to get to Delaware, and he is not president

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/09/biden-million-weekend-travel/


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

A Fox News listener. Did you hear that Rush is ashamed of this country, perhaps you and he could nove elsewhere so you wouldn't have to deal with Obama.

Oh Rocky, did you hear the complete comment, or are you flying off the handle and jumping to assumptions based on a sentence out of context? I heard the comment yesterday and his response to the hillarious reaction by the lefties. But maybe that is how low information voters think, and must rely on a thrill up my leg Chris Matthews for thoughts on current events. Kind of reminds me of "When Harry Met Sally" ..... Someone saying the word Obama and watching Chris Matthews twitch in pure joy


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

off2knit said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Juneway, in my world, calling someone "lazy" which is repeated over and over by some people on this site implies an attitude about black people that I will not let go. The facts about the President's vacation time are available for all to see, and the difference between his three weeks vacation a year and that of President Bush, at fifteen weeks a year, makes it obvious who is lazy. Being upset because Mrs. Obama has travelled with her daughters outside the United States, something many people do, and the way that was expressed, smacks of bigotry.
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Some people seem to think that since the Obamas are not as wealthy as some Presidential families they should spend their vacations "earning their keep"--Mr. Obama can tend the White House grounds, Mrs. Obama can slip on a size-50 dress and bandanna and work in the kitchens.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Hey Pardoquilts, you said in my world. What world to you live on that you makes you think the way you do?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

And why does the thought of upper class African-Americans seem to make you so uncomfortable?


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

I'm not sure where you are getting that idea....I don't read those feelings in anyone's responses. ????



susanmos2000 said:


> And why does the thought of upper class African-Americans seem to make you so uncomfortable?


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

There are enough racist remarks in this topic that it should have a place in the Guiness Book of World Records. It's really easy to have racist attitudes toward African-Americans as they are so easy to identify because of their skin color. Add that to the decades of repetition about how lazy and stupid they are and it becomes instantly possible to think our President is just one more Steppin' Fetchit. So far he hasn't broken out into a buck-and-wing dance but for those of you who are expressing the automatic racism some of us have and don't understand how ingrained black/white racism is in this country can hope he will and thus prove his worthlessness. The only problem with that hope is that no one can hold their breath long enough to see the glorious moment occur.

Oh yeah, on a different subject, how about some of you read President Eisenhower's farewell speach that I posted a few pages ago and think about how many of his hopes for the future never came to pass. He made some remarks about bipartisanship that we would do well to remember.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

momeee said:


> I'm not sure where you are getting that idea....I don't read those feelings in anyone's responses. ????
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I certainly do ...the President is "lazy" for taking three weeks of vacation, Mrs. Obama is "decadent" for wearing French dresses and taking her daughters to Europe. The message seems crystal-clear: the First Family has forgotten their place in the natural order of things and would do well to remember it.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

I live in Chicago, In Hyde Park, near the University of Chicago. Yes, it is the President's neighborhood...no, I don't know the Obamas. Hyde Park is an extremely racially diverse neighborhood, and our neighbors come from all kinds of cultural backgrounds. We are able, both in our nieghborhood and my church, a very diverse place as well, to have conversations about racial issues without name calling and anger. One of the things that comes up over and over again is the place that language - code words - has in the national dialogue. When there is no evidence that the President is lazy, when he takes far less vacation time than any Republican President in recent memory, I call those code words. When people complain about the Obamas going somewhere outside of the White House for vacation, when they don't have access to a mega acre ranch or a family compound in Kennibunkport, Maine, where would you suggest they go for the three weeks of vacation that they do take?

In my world, my business partners are both African American, as is my oldest friend in the world. I am not. But I have years of talking honestly with these friends and hearing their reactions to the language people use. The sub rose racism in some sections of this country cannot help but affect the way people think about the President and his family. It becomes obvious when some people in this conversation verbalize their disagreement with the President by constantly calling him lazy, when he is demonstrably not. They show their true feelings when they spread rumors about Mrs. Obama's so called "decadent" lifestyle. I do not equate being black with being lazy - but it is definitely code. Susanmos is right - the notion of upper middle class black families really ticks some people off.


off2knit said:


> Hey Pardoquilts, you said in my world. What world to you live on that you makes you think the way you do?


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

In slang, "tool" is the name for the male member.


thumper5316 said:


> Tool (noun) - A device or implement used to carry out a particular function.
> 
> I have often wondered who is pulling his strings. The man doesn't have enough brains to act on his own.
> 
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

It reminds me of how the first women students in "men's" colleges and universities were expected to show their "gratitude" by taking on their (male) professors' mending. It's disgusting.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Sorry, I don't agree with your interpretation. My criticism of Mrs.o's trips would be if they were paid for by the tax payers.- as I had been led to believe the two that she had done with/for the girls. Most recent 1st ladies have had designer wardrobes given to them...so what. As long as I'm not paying, good for her. I never said lazy. I just think the pres is ineffectual and has not appeared to accomplish what he claimed or promised he would, while is on the road a great deal. The press certainly has given him great coverage in this. I do think that in a campaign year, most politicians from mayor to president, local to national, do not give adequate attention to the actual job while they are trying to get re-elected. 


susanmos2000 said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure where you are getting that idea....I don't read those feelings in anyone's responses. ????
> ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> And why does the thought of upper class African-Americans seem to make you so uncomfortable?


You are the one who is pulling the race card. Why? There have been plenty of wealthy people of any color not just blacks especially in the world of entertainment so don't go there because you are wrong!

I'm a woman of color who does not like Pres O so there! Chew on those words!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Some people seem to think that since the Obamas are not as wealthy as some Presidential families they should spend their vacations "earning their keep"--Mr. Obama can tend the White House grounds, Mrs. Obama can slip on a size-50 dress and bandanna and work in the kitchens.


To me you are horribly misinformed! Where do you get these ideas as "no one" on this thread has even hinted of such garbage you are referring to in the above quote!


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Code words.............

Good grief, that is the most hilariously pathetic thing I have read in a long long time. If I say, "oh shoot", what is that a code for hummmmmm? Better than poop, gun reference, shooting for the stars, dash me a note, shoot for a certain time....??????????????? Oh, I know. Maybe you should report us to the Obama website:

http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/277153/obama-creates-website-report-attacks-greg-pollowitz

Guess we all are going to get audited this year. Hey it is better than when Clinton was president, how many people died under his reign?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> I live in Chicago, In Hyde Park, near the University of Chicago. Yes, it is the President's neighborhood...no, I don't know the Obamas. Hyde Park is an extremely racially diverse neighborhood, and our neighbors come from all kinds of cultural backgrounds. We are able, both in our nieghborhood and my church, a very diverse place as well, to have conversations about racial issues without name calling and anger. One of the things that comes up over and over again is the place that language - code words - has in the national dialogue. When there is no evidence that the President is lazy, when he takes far less vacation time than any Republican President in recent memory, I call those code words. When people complain about the Obamas going somewhere outside of the White House for vacation, when they don't have access to a mega acre ranch or a family compound in Kennibunkport, Maine, where would you suggest they go for the three weeks of vacation that they do take?
> 
> In my world, my business partners are both African American, as is my oldest friend in the world. I am not. But I have years of talking honestly with these friends and hearing their reactions to the language people use. The sub rose racism in some sections of this country cannot help but affect the way people think about the President and his family. It becomes obvious when some people in this conversation verbalize their disagreement with the President by constantly calling him lazy, when he is demonstrably not. They show their true feelings when they spread rumors about Mrs. Obama's so called "decadent" lifestyle. I do not equate being black with being lazy - but it is definitely code. Susanmos is right - the notion of upper middle class black families really ticks some people off.
> 
> ...


Para, it does not tick me off to know that people of color are wealthy--you and Susanmos brought it up and are taking it to the inth level. No one said anything such as what you are saying so stop beating that dead horse as it is already dead! Move on!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Code words.............
> 
> Good grief, that is the most hilariously pathetic thing I have read in a long long time. If I say, "oh shoot", what is that a code for hummmmmm? Better than poop, gun reference, shooting for the stars, dash me a note, shoot for a certain time....??????????????? Oh, I know. Maybe you should report us to the Obama website:
> 
> ...


Give me more code words so I'll know what you are saying! I cannot read between the lines as I'm a woman of color!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

When the topic gets too hot to handle, those people go off line! I'll return later too.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

So who was in the picture you posted a few pages back?


Janeway said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > And why does the thought of upper class African-Americans seem to make you so uncomfortable?
> ...


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> So who was in the picture you posted a few pages back?
> 
> 
> Janeway said:
> ...


Jane, maybe her makeup was too light or maybe it was the lighting or maybe it was a Barbara Bush Halloween Costume, or maybe she is so heavenly that she just has a glow around her. 
Or maybe you did not get the decoder ring, so you could decode the secret message..........e a t y o u r o v al t i n e
ROTFLMAO


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I've been gone for a day or two and the same crap is still going on. You people who hate Obama don't even know that the language you use is absolutely, positively racist. Now that you know it is recognized by others (most people) as racist, maybe you can stop using it. If it continues, I guess you don't care if some of us find it offensive. It's similar to telling children not to use the "f" word.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

P.S. welcome to California, SeattleSoul.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I live in Chicago, In Hyde Park, near the University of Chicago. Yes, it is the President's neighborhood...no, I don't know the Obamas. Hyde Park is an extremely racially diverse neighborhood, and our neighbors come from all kinds of cultural backgrounds. We are able, both in our nieghborhood and my church, a very diverse place as well, to have conversations about racial issues without name calling and anger. One of the things that comes up over and over again is the place that language - code words - has in the national dialogue. When there is no evidence that the President is lazy, when he takes far less vacation time than any Republican President in recent memory, I call those code words. When people complain about the Obamas going somewhere outside of the White House for vacation, when they don't have access to a mega acre ranch or a family compound in Kennibunkport, Maine, where would you suggest they go for the three weeks of vacation that they do take?
> ...


In truth I think most people differentiate between income and social class. A gangster rapper with a string of hit records to his name seems a lot easier for people to understand and tolerate, especially if he looks (as a few do) a little like a gangster himself. I don't think it's the Obama family's wealth that makes folks bristle--by Washington standards they really don't have all that much--but rather the fact that they are a well-educated obviously intelligent couple who happen to be of color.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Frankly I've always figured those attacks on Obama's place of birth (Hawaii or the heart of Africa) are veiled attacks against the color of the President's skin, it hadn't occurred to me that all the comments on the site about his laziness and golf playing might possibly be of the same vein.
> All Presidents work hard. Period. Most of them appear to have aged 20 years by the time they leave the White House. Only the anti-Os out there can say whether they honestly believe our President spends his days on the couch with his feet up, or whether they're trying to draw attention to the race factor with their complaints.


I am amazed that people see such bias. I grew up in Baltimore, and have lived in Indianapolis and now in Atlanta for 38 years. I do not see this kind of bias against Obama. I taught mostly white classes and later mostly black classes - first grade. I'd say that 95% of the parents I worked with, black or white, were gracious, helpful, and interested in their children's education. There are certainly a few people who have not shaken prejudice from their minds, and sometimes the prejudice is against blacks, and sometimes - as we see on here - the prejudice is against people who don't agree with them on political issues.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> So who was in the picture you posted a few pages back?
> 
> 
> Janeway said:
> ...


I'm American Indian not black nor white, but a woman of color--red that is!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly I've always figured those attacks on Obama's place of birth (Hawaii or the heart of Africa) are veiled attacks against the color of the President's skin, it hadn't occurred to me that all the comments on the site about his laziness and golf playing might possibly be of the same vein.
> ...


I don't think any of the posts in the thread indicate the kind of hopeless hateful bigotry that was so common and so terrible a few generations ago, and I doubt many Americans at large feel that way either. But when people are anxious, frightened, and angry it's easy to for them to mouth the mindless bigotry and prejudices so many heard as children. No one seems immune, unfortunately.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> I've been gone for a day or two and the same crap is still going on. You people who hate Obama don't even know that the language you use is absolutely, positively racist. Now that you know it is recognized by others (most people) as racist, maybe you can stop using it. If it continues, I guess you don't care if some of us find it offensive. It's similar to telling children not to use the "f" word.


Again, I do not see the racist thingy going on. Show me where it is as paro and suz are the ones pulling out the race card.

If you are talking about someone being lazy--there are lazy people of every race not just one race and lazy to me does not mean anyone of color be they blue/green/red or tan!

Yes racism is offensive as I have lived it first hand--try even today to claim to be an American Indian! People still hate us for no reason!

That is why I use make-up when go out and when the hair got a little gray, my beautician helps out with the bottled stuff. The broad nose nearly gives me away though! Look at pic again!


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Going to bed. Good night, ladies.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > susanmos2000 said:
> ...


Well the American Indian still is hated more than any other race today in America--so lighten up.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Going to bed. Good night, ladies.


Me too as had enough for one night. Good night and God bless.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Janeway, unfortunately it is not only hatred against American Indians but a complete refusal to rectify generations of abuse and descrimination. My daughter-in-law, who is Creek, does not identify herself as a woman of color - but does as American Indian. And the fact of your First People identity doesn't mean you don't use language that is offensive to African Americans.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


Who are you calling gangsters? Most were foreign born Italians! Talk about racism--you are digging the hole deeper for yourself!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Janeway, unfortunately it is not only hatred against American Indians but a complete refusal to rectify generations of abuse and descrimination. My daughter-in-law, who is Creek, does not identify herself as a woman of color - but does as American Indian. And the fact of your First People identity doesn't mean you don't use language that is offensive to African Americans.


I don't feel any animosity towards any other race or color, but can see no matter what is said, you will still talk with your forked tongue and twist the words to your way of thinking.

Your DIL is not white; therefore she is a woman of color any way you slice it!

I won' discuss this issue with you anymore. Out of here tonight!


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Off2knit, that's "d r i n k y o u r o v a l t i n e". What does "ROTFLMAO" mean? I'm definetly not up to date on these new-fangled texting abbreviations.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Janeway said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Janeway said:
> ...


Gangsta' rap is a music genre. Most gangsters were foreign-born Italians? Is that not racist, too?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Off2knit, that's "d r i n k y o u r o v a l t i n e". What does "ROTFLMAO" mean? I'm definetly not up to date on these new-fangled texting abbreviations.


Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off, I think.


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

It is my opinion that o is incompetent, lazy and in over his head. And it is these characteristics which make it impossible for him to put together a budget, present it to Congress and negotiate it to a conclusion. And why can't he step up and take the blame for the debacle of Benghazi. Instead he had Hiliary to be his fall gal. Being the Commander in Chief is not his strong point.

And these are human traits and no race has a monopoly on them. I would like to see affirmative action abolished and individuals judged by their actions and deeds and rewarded according to their accomplishments rather than the color of their skin or what x y chromosomes they have. It is the people who try to play the race card all the time who are indeed the most racially challenged. Two of the greatest minds in our country from my point of view are Thomas Sowell and Ben Carson. They are brilliant!

What troubles me more than anything is that he was re-elected. That speaks more about the people of our country than about o. And it is that which I fear.

Many Americans were put off with Moochel and her trip to Spain with her entourage of friends and relatives blatantly taking advantage of hard earned public funds. And to make matters worse it was at a time when so many were out of work, threatened with losing their job and/or waiting for their home to go into foreclosure. And o went on TV and proclaimed we should take vacations in the Gulf. Someone asked where Moochel should go on holiday. What was wrong with her husbands suggestion? She should have gone to the Gulf. And what's wrong with Camp David? It was good enough for Laura Bush and the girls and other Presidents and their families?


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

SeattleSoul said:


> Off2knit, that's "d r i n k y o u r o v a l t i n e". What does "ROTFLMAO" mean? I'm definetly not up to date on these new-fangled texting abbreviations.


Just trying to see if you were paying attention. It really is a secret code using super secret code words.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > susanmos2000 said:
> ...


See what I'm talking about--anything that is said is taken totally out of content and twisted into your way of thinking. I won't respond anymore as we are friends and this was totally uncalled for in the conversations going.

No I'm not a racist and won't respond to silly childhood remarks. Some of you have entirely too much time on your hands. I'm going back to constructive knitting for charity. Gave 3 shawls to our local breast cancer center last week so what have the rest of you done for your fellow man?

Will post pics soon as finish next shawl as most are not put into pics as they are prayer shawls, but think some of you should see what I do with the time that is available to me when I am able to knit.

What do you do with your time?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janeway said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Janeway said:
> ...


 Pardoquilts, maybe your friends should try walking in someone else's shoes. Maybe they should let us all know what those "special" words are so we can avoid them - or maybe they should realize that those words do NOT mean the same thing in the 20th century. You can be offended if I use the words left-handed; but if I don't know those words offend you, there has been no true offense committed. I can be offended if you use the words "south-paw" since I'm left-handed, but if you don't know that I consider those words offensive, you've done nothing wrong to me. Words are words, and sometimes beauty - or offensiveness - is ONLY in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

RUKnitting said:


> Many Americans were put off with Moochel and her trip to Spain with her entourage of friends and relatives blatantly taking advantage of hard earned public funds. And to make matters worse it was at a time when so many were out of work, threatened with losing their job and/or waiting for their home to go into foreclosure. And o went on TV and proclaimed we should take vacations in the Gulf. Someone asked where Moochel should go on holiday. What was wrong with her husbands suggestion? She should have gone to the Gulf. And what's wrong with Camp David? It was good enough for Laura Bush and the girls and other Presidents and their families?


Just checked the facts, the Obamas used their own funds to pay for Michelle and their daughter Sasha, the friends paid for their own room, food, and transportation.

I suppose the anti-Os are irked that Michelle used the Secret Service for protection instead of simply purchasing a wig and false mustache from the dollar store.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janeway said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Janeway said:
> ...


Hi, Jane. I see you're up and back at this stuff just as I am this morning! Today we're celebrating my husband's 70th birthday! Two of three kids will make it for the birthday bash. So I'm off to buy balloons and pick up the ice cream cake. No knitting today, but I'm enjoying making a pink blanket for one granddaughter and washcloths for my friend's shoeboxes (Samaritan's Purse). I'll be out of the KP fray today! Enjoy.
Bonnie


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Just finished another shawl so here is the pics and pics of scrap quilt I also make for charity. The fabric is given to me so I try to make it look good but as you can see some are very scrappy but are warm when I quilt them. Hope they come through.sorry don't know how to make the pics small so am learning one step at a time.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Thanks Bonnie as I can read you have more productive things besides being on this site. Have a great day my friend. Jane


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Lovely patchwork, Janeway. My mother used to be an excellent quilter but arthritis has put an end to that, unfortunately. She also used to do lovely crewel work and applique and all our wall hangings were made by her.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

This is the part of President Eisenhower's speech I had hoped would be read and commented on here, and that speaks to the different condition that exists today concerning bipartisanship. I tend to think the lack of bipartisanship in Congress contributes a great deal to preventing President Obama from being an effective President. Would that the current Congress could take Eisenhower's words to heart.

"My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together."


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Actually - her other half is Hungarian. what color is that?


Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Janeway, unfortunately it is not only hatred against American Indians but a complete refusal to rectify generations of abuse and descrimination. My daughter-in-law, who is Creek, does not identify herself as a woman of color - but does as American Indian. And the fact of your First People identity doesn't mean you don't use language that is offensive to African Americans.
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Is there any point to name-calling and racial epithets other than to offend people on this thread? Once someone says s/he finds it offensive, people who are sensitive and want to get along will not use the terms again. So now I know how some of you REALLY feel about the rest of us.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Is there any point to name-calling and racial epithets other than to offend people on this thread? Once someone says s/he finds it offensive, people who are sensitive and want to get along will not use the terms again. So now I know how some of you REALLY feel about the rest of us.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Actually - her other half is Hungarian. what color is that?
> 
> 
> Janeway said:
> ...


That is a "happy" color! Now think of something else to talk about!


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

RUKnitting said:


> It is my opinion that o is incompetent, lazy and in over his head. And it is these characteristics which make it impossible for him to put together a budget, present it to Congress and negotiate it to a conclusion. And why can't he step up and take the blame for the debacle of Benghazi. Instead he had Hiliary to be his fall gal. Being the Commander in Chief is not his strong point.
> 
> And these are human traits and no race has a monopoly on them. I would like to see affirmative action abolished and individuals judged by their actions and deeds and rewarded according to their accomplishments rather than the color of their skin or what x y chromosomes they have. It is the people who try to play the race card all the time who are indeed the most racially challenged. Two of the greatest minds in our country from my point of view are Thomas Sowell and Ben Carson. They are brilliant!
> 
> ...


How do you define Obama as "lazy"? Your comments are really very demeaning...Moochel for one. Why such vitriol, what is the basis for you obvious hatred of the President? You may dislike his policies but you get downright personal in you invective against him and his wife. Do oyou feel the same way about the Congress and their lack of compromise and wanting to actually help this country? Or do you lay all the blame at the President's feet? It taks two to tango and the objectionist rep party has no desire to work together, Policy making is the art f working together and coming to some kind of compromise.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Is there any point to name-calling and racial epithets other than to offend people on this thread? Once someone says s/he finds it offensive, people who are sensitive and want to get along will not use the terms again. So now I know how some of you REALLY feel about the rest of us.


Well you started this so since your dog in the Avatar is white what color or lack of color are you? I'm not ashamed of my race but so many people still show hatred is why I don't try to show the "red" side. I thought we were still friends as that is what I said. Must get back to crafts as they do hold my interest.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > susanmos2000 said:
> ...


After this past election,, it is difficult for me to beleive that anyone who was paying attention did not hear the racism invvoked by politicians, pastors etc, Yes Margaret there are "code" words used to keep peole of color in their place. I think that you alll are indenial or actually beleive in the racism you profess to abhor.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> This is the part of President Eisenhower's speech I had hoped would be read and commented on here, and that speaks to the different condition that exists today concerning bipartisanship. I tend to think the lack of bipartisanship in Congress contributes a great deal to preventing President Obama from being an effective President. Would that the current Congress could take Eisenhower's words to heart.
> 
> "My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
> 
> In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together."


Interesting...I'm guessing the Congress Eisenhower was referring to was dominated by the Democrats? (I know he was a Republican).


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> RUKnitting said:
> 
> 
> > Many Americans were put off with Moochel and her trip to Spain with her entourage of friends and relatives blatantly taking advantage of hard earned public funds. And to make matters worse it was at a time when so many were out of work, threatened with losing their job and/or waiting for their home to go into foreclosure. And o went on TV and proclaimed we should take vacations in the Gulf. Someone asked where Moochel should go on holiday. What was wrong with her husbands suggestion? She should have gone to the Gulf. And what's wrong with Camp David? It was good enough for Laura Bush and the girls and other Presidents and their families?
> ...


Oh dear, must nt use facts to deny falsehoods against the Obama's.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Janeway said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any point to name-calling and racial epithets other than to offend people on this thread? Once someone says s/he finds it offensive, people who are sensitive and want to get along will not use the terms again. So now I know how some of you REALLY feel about the rest of us.
> ...


Janeway
I understand that you don't like to talk about certain things and that you like to keep the conversation light and non-confrontational. It really does hurt people to hear others use degrading terms when speaking of the Obama family, and people have the right to ask that others keep the conversation civil. I wouldn't even think of calling a Native American a derogatory term---or an African-American or an Italian American or a Latino. I don't understand why others need to do it when they know that I and others here are offended by it. Is it asking too much to ask that people be a little more respectful of all races or ethnic groups? I live in California where we have a huge, diverse population. Everyone is "something." I just don't hear this kind of language in polite, educated society, do you?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Lovely patchwork, Janeway. My mother used to be an excellent quilter but arthritis has put an end to that, unfortunately. She also used to do lovely crewel work and applique and all our wall hangings were made by her.


Thank you for enjoying my handiwork as others do not seem to look at anything crafty. This shawl has not been prayed over is why I took a picture, but the other 3 I gave last week had been prayed over so no picture was taken of them. Must work in the ends (prayers done) then it will be given to those great ladies who are taking chemo to keep their shoulders warm.

Yes I do have osteoarthritis so will work on crafts as long as possible. Take pics of some of your mother's lovely work to show as I would love to see it!


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

The term 'racial' offends me. Please refrain from using it.

What terms can I then use in regards to our completely idiotic leader that won't offend your sensitivities?



alcameron said:


> Is there any point to name-calling and racial epithets other than to offend people on this thread? Once someone says s/he finds it offensive, people who are sensitive and want to get along will not use the terms again. So now I know how some of you REALLY feel about the rest of us.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> The term 'racial' offends me. Please refrain from using it.
> 
> What terms can I then use in regards to our completely idiotic leader that won't offend your sensitivities?
> 
> ...


You exemplify my point, exactly. No need to say more.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Janeway, I like doing prayer shawls, too. The crafts I do well are embroidery, hand sewing, and crochet. One of these days I'll get around to posting some pictures of my mother's work. Most of my own has been given away...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

I think self-indulgence and self-gratification are a couple other reasons for the name-calling and racial epithets on this thread. Yes, we all have freedom of speech. Sometines, however, we should show a little restraint in what we say.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


No, I don't like to hear racists remarks either so if I owe you an apology then I'm sorry! Yes, most people are a mixture of something as my children are a mixture of Dutch, Irish and American Indian. My siblings have a lot more diversity so they are all what one would call a mixture.

My grands are even more diverse as two are Russian so we aren't sure of their background but it makes no difference to me if they were "green" as I love them with all my heart.

I allowed my feelings to come to the surface so I'm sorry about that fact! Now, I must return to the crafts as you can see the quilts need attention as these will go to our local fire department to wrap around someone who needs warmth from whatever disaster they are in at the time from a fire or a car accident.

A friend told me that the fire department had ask quilting clubs for large baby quilts as those are large enough to keep even an adult warm. Even in auto accidents, most people do not drive with their coats on and when injured their coats cannot be put on for warmth.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Janeway, your work is beautiful. You must be a very fast knitter to accomplish all that you do. Do you knit European style or conventional? I knit so slowly that it would take me months to finish shawls. The best I can do for the mission in my area is hats!!! Keep up the good work.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

How about describing some actual thoughts about how to solve some of our problems that aren't direct quotes from Fox News? How would you solve the problem of 17 million children who go to bed hungrey every night in this country, for example? Actual suggestions, without making assumptions about their parents. What would you suggest we do to solve the problems that urban schools face every day? Real solutions, not broad generalizations.


thumper5316 said:


> The term 'racial' offends me. Please refrain from using it.
> 
> What terms can I then use in regards to our completely idiotic leader that won't offend your sensitivities?
> 
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

This was said by a man who knew how to lead and how to work with the multitudes of personalities under his command. As a General he knew how to evaluate a situation and how to plan and work through it, however long it took to accomplish what had to be done...done for the good of his country and fellow Americans, without letting his personal agenda get in the way. Oh, how we need someone with his work ethic and foresight.
Thank you for sharing it.



SeattleSoul said:


> This is the part of President Eisenhower's speech I had hoped would be read and commented on here, and that speaks to the different condition that exists today concerning bipartisanship. I tend to think the lack of bipartisanship in Congress contributes a great deal to preventing President Obama from being an effective President. Would that the current Congress could take Eisenhower's words to heart.
> 
> "My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
> 
> In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together."


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Pardo, I think we should be putting our time and effort into volunteering with groups that are doing concrete things you want to do yourself. Donate $$$ to charities you approve of if you can. If you belong to a particular church, work out a way to help your fellow congregants without embarrasing them. If you're a Catholic, participate in your parish's works. Heck, go out and hand out sandwiches to homeless people.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

momeee said:


> This was said by a man who knew how to lead and how to work with the multitudes of personalities under his command. As a General he knew how to evaluate a situation and how to plan and work through it, however long it took to accomplish what had to be done...done for the good of his country and fellow Americans, without letting his personal agenda get in the way. Oh, how we need someone with his work ethic and foresight.
> Thank you for sharing it.
> 
> 
> ...


He also had people in Congress who would work with him instead of against him. Eisenhower was a different strain of republican than the ones in Congress today.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

racist's started on MSN, by news casters
Chris Mattews just a foul mouth liberal, as the left thinks of most right news casters.

How racist I am, people I hope will run for President in next election if we get there. 

Allen West for sure.
Colin Powell
Dr. Benjamin Carson
So much for my being a racist.

Tooth Faity could do much better job.

Sequester Obama said in news cast in first term was all for it.

Jump ahead Obama against Sequester, even has first responder's standing behind him.

Problem with that these people are paid by state goverment not federal government.

Hope Obama gets what he does not or does he want. Sequester.

Blaming cats, mean I go for Squirrels

Back of penny and dollar bill In God We Trust. Freedom from Religion foundation has not seen to change yet.

Lovely quilt, and shawl.

Most of bringing up racist done by people on here from the left.

Think it's time some admire people who have done goverment service in the right way, instead of all the hollwood, and singers who only contibution to this country is all mouth and no actions, plus to rich to handle

Obama and family poor don't think so you must look at his taxs returns they are the only thing he has allowed public to see. Everthing else has been sealed to public.

Think thats about all I have gotten out of this have missed a couple of days, busy doing husbands family history. Must say nicer then what President and government is doing is doing.
Just a side note, Sky is starting to fall, hold on to your seats ladies promises to be a bumpy ride.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Pardo, I think we should be putting our time and effort into volunteering with groups that are doing concrete things you want to do yourself. Donate $$$ to charities you approve of if you can. If you belong to a particular church, work out a way to help your fellow congregants without embarrasing them. If you're a Catholic, participate in your parish's works. Heck, go out and hand out sandwiches to homeless people.


I like what you have said, isn't it true. Instead of expecting government to do it all, we should be doing it.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> RUKnitting said:
> 
> 
> > Many Americans were put off with Moochel and her trip to Spain with her entourage of friends and relatives blatantly taking advantage of hard earned public funds. And to make matters worse it was at a time when so many were out of work, threatened with losing their job and/or waiting for their home to go into foreclosure. And o went on TV and proclaimed we should take vacations in the Gulf. Someone asked where Moochel should go on holiday. What was wrong with her husbands suggestion? She should have gone to the Gulf. And what's wrong with Camp David? It was good enough for Laura Bush and the girls and other Presidents and their families?
> ...


Who paid for jet plane and security? who paid to put these people up in Hotels and food? Obama ? and stop with the anti-O"s
He is President or Obama.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> How about describing some actual thoughts about how to solve some of our problems that aren't direct quotes from Fox News? How would you solve the problem of 17 million children who go to bed hungrey every night in this country, for example? Actual suggestions, without making assumptions about their parents. What would you suggest we do to solve the problems that urban schools face every day? Real solutions, not broad generalizations.
> 
> 
> thumper5316 said:
> ...


 Many on here have done that and apparently you just don't read post


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Momee, I don't think it was just Eisenhower's talents that created a positive climate of bipartisan cooperation, though he had a formidable amount of experience,as you point out. The members of Congress had to be willing to cooperate, too. Our present Congress has a confidence rating that's shamefully low. They don't even seem to realize they are there to represent their constituents. While there are some things President Obama can be criticised for, I think Congress needs a huge infusion of the cooperative spirit.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Momee, I don't think it was just Eisenhower's talents that created a positive climate of bipartisan cooperation, though he had a formidable amount of experience,as you point out. The members of Congress had to be willing to cooperate, too. Our present Congress has a confidence rating that's shamefully low. They don't even seem to realize they are there to represent their constituents. While there are some things President Obama can be criticised for, I think Congress needs a huge infusion of the cooperate spirit.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Hmm, I've always admired Eisenhower for his use of troops to enforce desegregation, also for calling the Senate-McCarthy hearings. The one thing that kind of rankles was his choice of VP. Eisenhower was an intelligent man, shouldn't have let himself be duped by Tricky Dick.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> This is the part of President Eisenhower's speech I had hoped would be read and commented on here, and that speaks to the different condition that exists today concerning bipartisanship. I tend to think the lack of bipartisanship in Congress contributes a great deal to preventing President Obama from being an effective President. Would that the current Congress could take Eisenhower's words to heart.
> 
> "My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
> 
> In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together."


Wow. If only we could have that now. The division is even among the people, which is very sad. It's too bitter. People are angry with one another because they disagree on political issues. Our cohesiveness as a citizenry is more important than that.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Maybe this would be a good time to bombard our Congressional representatives with President Eisenhower's remarks on the kind of bipartisanship he experienced.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

You are absolutely right...term limits perhaps would somewhat help to rectify that? Of course, what amount of years would allow one to be effective, and what amount would lead to the nonsense we're now seeing? I do not have any idea as to the answer to those questions. I say hold back their paychecks until at least a workable budget gets done...



SeattleSoul said:


> Momee, I don't think it was just Eisenhower's talents that created a positive climate of bipartisan cooperation, though he had a formidable amount of experience,as you point out. The members of Congress had to be willing to cooperate, too. Our present Congress has a confidence rating that's shamefully low. They don't even seem to realize they are there to represent their constituents. While there are some things President Obama can be criticised for, I think Congress needs a huge infusion of the cooperative spirit.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Momee, what I find more than impossible to understand is why people keep electing the same representatives to Congress when those guys have proven time and again that they don't and won't represent their constituents and can't figure out how to work together. Surely there are some better candidates out there. (I hope...)


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Most could not tell you what the people that they voted for stand for....other than their political party. Nor could they name bills submitted, how they voted on issues. We have a terribly under-informed voting population . They do think, read, or analyze critically. They vote by sound bites, or empty promises.... What hope is there?



SeattleSoul said:


> Momee, what I find more than impossible to understand is why people keep electing the same representatives to Congress when those guys have proven time and again that they don't and won't represent their constituents and can't figure out how to work together. Surely there are some better candidates out there. (I hope...)


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

momeee said:


> Janeway, your work is beautiful. You must be a very fast knitter to accomplish all that you do. Do you knit European style or conventional? I knit so slowly that it would take me months to finish shawls. The best I can do for the mission in my area is hats!!! Keep up the good work.


Thanks as I knit both ways as with arthritis, I must rest the hands while knitting. I'm not fast just some days cannot do much so don't want to sleep so I change from knitting/crocheting to embroidery to sewing so it helps.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

That is a great idea!!!!!



SeattleSoul said:


> Maybe this would be a good time to bombard our Congressional representatives with President Eisenhower's remarks on the kind of bipartisanship he experienced.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Momee, I think we have to keep hoping for the best and seeking people we can elect to Congress who understand they are there for us, for our country and that nothing can be accomplished unless they all work together for the common good.

I have gone to the website, www.usa.gov, where you can find lists of all Senators and House members with their email addresses. I've worked my way through sending this message to 10 Senators so far and am going to chip away at this effort until I send this message to all 553 members of Congress.

My message:
"Currently 9% of Americans think Congress is doing a good to excellent job. 89% think Congress is doing a fair to poor job. Bipartisanship and cooperation seem to have become dirty words. Our country needs a Congress that practices positive bipartisanship and cooperation across party lines'

You would do well to consider what President Eisenhower said in his 1961 farewell address to the nation. Read the quote below and start doing the job you were elected to do.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.
My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Unfortunately, many members of Congress do not accept or read mail from people who aren't in their constituency.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

alcameron said:


> Unfortunately, many members of Congress do not accept or read mail from people who aren't in their constituency.


I'm sure you're right but I think I'll try it anyway. Hope springs eternal in the bossom of a fool (me).


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Go for it!


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, many members of Congress do not accept or read mail from people who aren't in their constituency.
> ...


I love what you are saying and doing. Love the attitude of sticking to it too. :thumbup:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

momeee said:


> You are absolutely right...term limits perhaps would somewhat help to rectify that? Of course, what amount of years would allow one to be effective, and what amount would lead to the nonsense we're now seeing? I do not have any idea as to the answer to those questions. I say hold back their paychecks until at least a workable budget gets done...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes agree term limits,and salary caps if they do not do the work that is to be done. 
It's not just the congress with low rating's it is the Senate too.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Yes I'm all for a one term in any political office as they soon forget who put them into office. Sunshine is everywhere today. Want more pics?


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

I am sure that you feel like you are accomplishing something, but in reality if you really cared you would go to your representative's office and speak to him or her. If I were a politician a mass message like that would be considered spam. Face to face visits, attending 'town hall meetings' or a personal letter would be far more appreciated and considered of value than an email.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

If you don't mind, I'll adopt and adapt your message. You are right - we can't continue to be silent.



SeattleSoul said:


> Momee, I think we have to keep hoping for the best and seeking people we can elect to Congress who understand they are there for us, for our country and that nothing can be accomplished unless they all work together for the common good.
> 
> I have gone to the website, www.usa.gov, where you can find lists of all Senators and House members with their email addresses. I've worked my way through sending this message to 10 Senators so far and am going to chip away at this effort until I send this message to all 553 members of Congress.
> 
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

pardoquilts, you often ask for suggestions, which I've given in abundance...not from Fox, but from a long professional career...I would be interested in what you might suggest, other than we all should give more, and some people earn too much money. Where is your source for 17 million children going hungry? With the extremely high number of people on food stamps,supplementary income (not sure what it's called), the availability of food banks, etc., that figure seems might high. Additionally, schools in high poverty areas are serving 2 and even 3 meals a day along with snacks. Some are even sending home meals for weekends. In my area there was a big push to educate parents on how to stretch their food & dollars, by providing classes with money saving ideas for buying and preparing meals from scratch, using coupons along with other ideas. If you have suggestions, please share them. 


pardoquilts said:


> How about describing some actual thoughts about how to solve some of our problems that aren't direct quotes from Fox News? How would you solve the problem of 17 million children who go to bed hungrey every night in this country, for example? Actual suggestions, without making assumptions about their parents. What would you suggest we do to solve the problems that urban schools face every day? Real solutions, not broad generalizations.
> 
> 
> thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

off2knit said:


> I am sure that you feel like you are accomplishing something, but in reality if you really cared you would go to your representative's office and speak to him or her. If I were a politician a mass message like that would be considered spam. Face to face visits, attending 'town hall meetings' or a personal letter would be far more appreciated and considered of value than an email.


Yes, I feel I may accomplish something but I sure don't like being told what I'd be doing "if I really cared." Only a few members of Congress represent me, and, of course, only 2 Senators. Please, patronize some other fool. Maybe you'd like to send me 553 postage stamps, envelopes and pieces of paper. It's all too easy to tell someone what they should do when you don't know them or how much "free" time and money they have. :thumbdown:


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Momee, go for it. Anybody who wants to copy my message is more than welcome to do so. :thumbup:


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

momeee said:


> pardoquilts, you often ask for suggestions, which I've given in abundance...not from Fox, but from a long professional career...I would be interested in what you might suggest, other than we all should give more, and some people earn too much money. Where is your source for 17 million children going hungry? With the extremely high number of people on food stamps,supplementary income (not sure what it's called), the availability of food banks, etc., that figure seems might high. Additionally, schools in high poverty areas are serving 2 and even 3 meals a day along with snacks. Some are even sending home meals for weekends. In my area there was a big push to educate parents on how to stretch their food & dollars, by providing classes with money saving ideas for buying and preparing meals from scratch, using coupons along with other ideas. If you have suggestions, please share them.
> 
> 
> pardoquilts said:
> ...


Here is a link about food insecuity for chilren in the US:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hunger_at_home/hunger-home-american-children-malnourished/story?id=14367230


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Janeway, I've got a bright, blue sky where I am, too. House is about the same age, too.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

SeattleSoul said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure that you feel like you are accomplishing something, but in reality if you really cared you would go to your representative's office and speak to him or her. If I were a politician a mass message like that would be considered spam. Face to face visits, attending 'town hall meetings' or a personal letter would be far more appreciated and considered of value than an email.
> ...


Snap, must have hit a nerve


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

off2knit said:


> SeattleSoul said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Here we go again. More nastiness. Do you talk the same way face to face as you do on a forum? (Not you, Seattle, the other one.)


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Janeway said:


> Yes I'm all for a one term in any political office as they soon forget who put them into office. Sunshine is everywhere today. Want more pics?


I like your house I don't care how old it is,it's yours and it is beautiful.
reminds me of the poem

where we love is home, where our feet may leave but not our hearts.

Mom had it on a wall in the kitchen had to grow up to realize how true the words were.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Off2knit, I went back and read a dozen or so of your remarks in this thread and find you are well-practiced in hitting nerves. Silly me, I didn't check that out sooner.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

SeattleSoul, I do think it is very thoughtful what you are willing to do. It might not work but at least you are trying , that is more then I can say I have attempted.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> SeattleSoul, I do think it is very thoughtful what you are willing to do. It might not work but at least you are trying , that is more then I can say I have attempted.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

theyarnlady said:


> SeattleSoul, I do think it is very thoughtful what you are willing to do. It might not work but at least you are trying , that is more then I can say I have attempted.


Thanks for the compliment. Just do the best you can and you'll be doing a lot for this old world.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

alcameron said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > SeattleSoul, I do think it is very thoughtful what you are willing to do. It might not work but at least you are trying , that is more then I can say I have attempted.
> ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure that you feel like you are accomplishing something, but in reality if you really cared you would go to your representative's office and speak to him or her. If I were a politician a mass message like that would be considered spam. Face to face visits, attending 'town hall meetings' or a personal letter would be far more appreciated and considered of value than an email.
> ...


Guess I spent a few minutes too long in the sunshine, but I did not think what Off2knit said was hateful--where did I miss it. I did however find your remark of please, patronize some other fool completely unnecessary!

I think if people would think about what they are going to say then write a reply things would not get so "hot!"

I have been guilty of doing what I'm advising, but am trying to think before writing anything.

I'm off to sew.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Janeway said:


> SeattleSoul said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


I agree with you Janeway, I do not think she meant anything to be unkind. She just was stating what she thought and there is truth in what she has said.
I also do not agree that she has made any more nasty remarks than what I or anyone else on here has posted.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

These days KP seems to be operating like a miniature Congress: sound bites, snappy one-liners, and using one another to hone our tongues to razor sharpness.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Seattle - I do many of those things. I was the originator of an effort in our church (Unitarian Universalist) which gives all of the plate collection on the third Sunday of the month to a local, socially responsible organization. These groups have varried from a place that collects old bicycles and give kids an opportunity to learn to fix them, and earn their own bike in the process to an organization that funds bringing fresh produce to food deserts in the area - and a lot of others. We do the collection for three months at a time. We have, of course, also helped to fund our local food pantry from time to time. I was also responsible for helping to provide toiletries for 400 clients a month for the year of our churches 175th anniversary. Also, my husband and I are supporters of the Chicago Children's Choir, which orginated in our church and now provides a phenomenal music program in the city, serving over 3,000 kids. I also am co-owner of a fair trade retail store, which helps artisan groups around the world, providing a retail outlet for handmade goods made by people who get paid a living wage, work safely for themselves and the environment, are respected in dealing with their cultural norms, and participate in all ways in the operation of their cooperatives and businesses. I say this not to pat myself on the back - it is obvious that many folks on this site are generous and contribute much. I just believe that we have issues in this country which can only be solved by the cooperative effort of everyone - and the way to make that the most efficient is to do it throught the government.


SeattleSoul said:


> Pardo, I think we should be putting our time and effort into volunteering with groups that are doing concrete things you want to do yourself. Donate $$$ to charities you approve of if you can. If you belong to a particular church, work out a way to help your fellow congregants without embarrasing them. If you're a Catholic, participate in your parish's works. Heck, go out and hand out sandwiches to homeless people.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> These days KP seems to be operating like a miniature Congress: sound bites, snappy one-liners, and using one another to hone our tongues to razor sharpness.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :roll: :roll:


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Pardo, I was responding to what you said back on page 78. I think you quoted a couple of other people and asked what they were doing. I think it's great you and your husband can do as much as you do.The mre people who do the best they can the better this world will become, and people like you provide an excellent example of that.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Thanks, Seattle. As I said, I wasn't looking for a pat on the back - rather, I somethimes think people don't always know what they can do as individuals, so I wanted to put a couple of ideas out there. I particularly like our Third Sunday outreach at our church. When we first suggested it, some folks were, of course, dubious, because, like every other church, we need every dollar we can get to support all the work of the church. However, statistically, churches which do something like this end up with greated overall plate donations than they had before. That was true of us. We gained in total plate donations on the Sundays we don't collect for our Social Mission Outreach recipients and more than made up for the one Sunday we give it away. You are right - the point is to do something.


SeattleSoul said:


> Pardo, I was responding to what you said back on page 78. I think you quoted a couple of other people and asked what they were doing. I think it's great you and your husband can do as much as you do.The mre people who do the best they can the better this world will become, and people like you provide an excellent example of that.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Folks, for those of you who didn't notice Off2knits patronizing tone, all I can say is read again. Us grownups don't need to be told what to do "if we really cared". That's an official patronizing response whether it was meant to be or not. 

Janeway, I didn't use the word "hateful". It wasn't the right word to use so I didn't use it. I agree with what Susanmos2000 said "These days KP seems to be operating like a miniature Congress: sound bites, snappy one-liners, and using one another to hone our tongues to razor sharpness."

And I am a fool in a pleasant, doddering kind of way and sometimes find people think I'm denigrasting myself to say that. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call myself an ever hopeful idealist who isn't inclined to give up any of my ideals no matter how much other people suggest I do.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Pardo, I'm going through the process of what the Catholic Church calls the "Rite of Initiation of Adults to Christianity" (catechism for grownups...) in the parish my great-grandparents were in. The church has a very active parish life and I'm enjoying learning about that just as much as about the faith.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Pardo, I'm going through the process of what the Catholic Church calls the "Rite of Initiation of Adults to Christianity" (catechism for grownups...) in the parish my great-grandparents were in. The church has a very active parish life and I'm enjoying learning about that just as much as about the faith.


Did you move to an area that your grandparents were from in CA?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Pardo, I'm going through the process of what the Catholic Church calls the "Rite of Initiation of Adults to Christianity" (catechism for grownups...) in the parish my great-grandparents were in. The church has a very active parish life and I'm enjoying learning about that just as much as about the faith.


Congratulations! I went through the RCIA program in San Francisco (St. Cecilia's) about ten years ago. It's a beautiful thing, and I so enjoy seeing the candidates being presented to the congregation during the Easter season. You and the others in your group have my blessings and prayers for the step you all are about to take.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

alcameron said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > SeattleSoul said:
> ...


Is snap a code word for nasty? I think not.............. Just stated my obvervation, not a value judgement.

Talk about nasty, referring to me as "the other one", is in my humble opinion not only nasty but tacky. But ya'll have a blessed night, and I will include you in my evening prayers.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Pardo,yes. My great-grandparents emigrated from France to San Francisco where my great-grandfather and his brother had taylor's shop for many years in the Financal District. When their children were small they moved to a more countrified area which they thought would be a good place to raise their family. My grandmother and her two brothers went to the church as did my mother and all her sisters. I moved to Seattle 40 or so years ago where my mother joined m in 1999 after my dad died. Now we're back again. My father was a Catholic, too, but had come to hate the religion for reasons too lengthy to explain here, but that meant I wasn't raised in the faith and at this late date am catching up.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Thanks, Susan. I've just gotten started with the RCIA which is supposed to take a whole liturgical year, so I'll be taking the big step next Easter. I still get the RCIA mixed up and called it the RIAC...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Folks, for those of you who didn't notice Off2knits patronizing tone, all I can say is read again. Us grownups don't need to be told what to do "if we really cared". That's an official patronizing response whether it was meant to be or not.
> 
> Janeway, I didn't use the word "hateful". It wasn't the right word to use so I didn't use it. I agree with what Susanmos2000 said "These days KP seems to be operating like a miniature Congress: sound bites, snappy one-liners, and using one another to hone our tongues to razor sharpness."
> 
> And I am a fool in a pleasant, doddering kind of way and sometimes find people think I'm denigrasting myself to say that. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call myself an ever hopeful idealist who isn't inclined to give up any of my ideals no matter how much other people suggest I do.


I used the word hateful-- see how things gets twisted? I have reread what off2knit said and still do not think she was being disrespectful to you as you did say to send stamps and that you might not have time or money to send correspondence.

Susan, No, we who are not in agreement on this site are not a miniature Congress who use others to hone our tongues to razor sharpness!

What I have noticed when anyone except a few of you do not acknowledge anything anyone else does to help those less fortunate, but "really" toot your own horn about what you have done or doing for charity. How one sided is that?

My church recently sent $10,000 to a church in CA because of the poor area where they reside to feed the hungry so pardo, you did not mention how much actual cash you gave to these groups.

My husband and I have been eating hamburger 100 ways plus beans to give $100. Which was all we could scrape together as my medications are costly as next round of meds will put me into the donut hole.

If you have a business, then I'm sure you profit from any thing you sell that these poor people make. If you want to help then why don't you refrain from any profit from those poor people.

How do you really know they are paid a fair wage if they are in a poor area? There are too many questions that have not been answered.Please explain in detail instead if generalities or assumptions.

Going to bed, goodnight ladies!


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Janeway, I said Off2knit was being patronizing, not disrepectful. I lowered myself and made the snide remark about sending me postage stamps.

I try not to to my own horn. I try to acknowledge what others here are doing to make the world a better place, but haven't been participating here for very long so I've probably missed a lot about what people are accomplishing.

I'm dirt poor and would probably have to eat hamburger and beans for ten years to raise a $100 donation. I admire you and your husband for making the effort to save that $100 to donate to your church.

Sweet dreams, I gotta go make dinner.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

My grandmother had been a nun at one time. The convent that she was in burned down and they sent them home to wait for reassignment to another convent. While home she was in her sister's wedding and the rest is history.



SeattleSoul said:


> Pardo,yes. My great-grandparents emigrated from France to San Francisco where my great-grandfather and his brother had taylor's shop for many years in the Financal District. When their children were small they moved to a more countrified area which they thought would be a good place to raise their family. My grandmother and her two brothers went to the church as did my mother and all her sisters. I moved to Seattle 40 or so years ago where my mother joined m in 1999 after my dad died. Now we're back again. My father was a Catholic, too, but had come to hate the religion for reasons too lengthy to explain here, but that meant I wasn't raised in the faith and at this late date am catching up.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

I wonder how many of the nuns actually made it back to the convent in the end? I'm Catholic and always enjoy stories about pre-Vatican II convent life, but I know I'd never have been able to manage it.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

> Here is the website of Pardoquilts shop:
> http://thefairtraderchicago.com/


Pardo, I'm amazed! I can see you have two partners, but a business like this must keep you running from sunup to sundown (and then some). It looks fabulous! :-D


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Good for you, Seattle Soul! No fool at all.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

SeattleSoul said:


> Folks, for those of you who didn't notice Off2knits patronizing tone, all I can say is read again. Us grownups don't need to be told what to do "if we really cared". That's an official patronizing response whether it was meant to be or not.
> 
> Janeway, I didn't use the word "hateful". It wasn't the right word to use so I didn't use it. I agree with what Susanmos2000 said "These days KP seems to be operating like a miniature Congress: sound bites, snappy one-liners, and using one another to hone our tongues to razor sharpness."
> 
> And I am a fool in a pleasant, doddering kind of way and sometimes find people think I'm denigrasting myself to say that. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call myself an ever hopeful idealist who isn't inclined to give up any of my ideals no matter how much other people suggest I do.


I was not being patronizing, that was your interpretation. Just as I did not find you patronizing when you corrected my spelling. I try to not find hidden meanings, code words or even attempt to know what someone is thinking. I find if I do that it is spiritually draining. 
CCC: 2478


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

off2knit said:


> SeattleSoul said:
> 
> 
> > Folks, for those of you who didn't notice Off2knits patronizing tone, all I can say is read again. Us grownups don't need to be told what to do "if we really cared". That's an official patronizing response whether it was meant to be or not.
> ...


I thought the remark sounded unkind--it's always rather uncharitable to knock the wind out of someone's sails when they're excited about a new project, be it political or "crafty". 
What amazes me about the many unkind sniping remarks found in this thread is that they're such a contrast to the attitudes found on the Main board, where site members are inevitably kind, charitable, and supportive. I can't imagine anyone there giving the details of a WIP and being told that it's not ambitious enough, or posting an image of a completed scarf or sweater and having other site members point out all the mistakes.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Off2knit, this remark isn't just for you, it's for all of us. When someone here feels hurt by what someone says about a post they've made, the words nasty, mean and hateful start to fly all over the place. I added the word patronizing. 

I think all too often people rush to respond and don't even realize how what they've said sounds. Friends and family are all used to how their folks express themselves and know they have good intentions. Most of us here on KP don't know each other and don't know what others' true intentions are. 

What I do know is that there are a lot of really nice people on KP and what I think is actually happening is that someone is being tactless with no intention of hurting anyone's feelings. So, everybody, when you think you've been insulted in some way, just chalk it up to unintentional tactlessness and move on.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Well said. I'd like to add the word "racist" to your list as well.



SeattleSoul said:


> Off2knit, this remark isn't just for you, it's for all of us. When someone here feels hurt by what someone says about a post they've made, the words nasty, mean and hateful start to fly all over the place. I added the word patronizing.
> 
> I think all too often people rush to respond and don't even realize how what they've said sounds. Friends and family are all used to how their folks express themselves and know they have good intentions. Most of us here on KP don't know each other and don't know what others' true intentions are. So the words nasty, mean and hateful start to fly all over the place. I added patronizing to that list.
> 
> ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Well, I'm really tired of all of the hateful, see I said it, remarks and am leaving this site.

All of my friends know where to meet so talk to you on the other place.

I think some people on this site are just enjoying slamming others is how they get their jollies each hour of the day. There is NO notice of what they do except make nasty remarks and belittle others while tooting their own horn. What a waste of life.

Will watch for my friends. Jane


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Off2knit, this remark isn't just for you, it's for all of us. When someone here feels hurt by what someone says about a post they've made, the words nasty, mean and hateful start to fly all over the place. I added the word patronizing.
> 
> I think all too often people rush to respond and don't even realize how what they've said sounds. Friends and family are all used to how their folks express themselves and know they have good intentions. Most of us here on KP don't know each other and don't know what others' true intentions are. So the words nasty, mean and hateful start to fly all over the place. I added patronizing to that list.
> 
> ...


That's true enough on the Main board, people often do offend each other unintentionally, but then they immediately jump in to clarify and/or apologize as I have done myself a few times.
This thread is different...somehow it's become a place to express ourselves without restraint and often (it seems) try to get a rise out of each other. Yesterday a poster asked me to PLEASE stop using the term "anti-Os"...while I dutifully complied I also found myself making a mental note that this was a term that could set at least some of the GOP teeth on edge. And frankly that's not like me at all. Hmm...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > SeattleSoul said:
> ...


I have not read these things on this site so don't know where you came up with all of these untruths about anyone telling someone else about a mistake on a scarf or sweater. Where do all of this untruthful information come from--your imagination?

Out of here as tired of all this garbage!


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Off2knit, this remark isn't just for you, it's for all of us. When someone here feels hurt by what someone says about a post they've made, the words nasty, mean and hateful start to fly all over the place. I added the word patronizing.
> 
> I think all too often people rush to respond and don't even realize how what they've said sounds. Friends and family are all used to how their folks express themselves and know they have good intentions. Most of us here on KP don't know each other and don't know what others' true intentions are.
> 
> What I do know is that there are a lot of really nice people on KP and what I think is actually happening is that someone is being tactless with no intention of hurting anyone's feelings. So, everybody, when you think you've been insulted in some way, just chalk it up to unintentional tactlessness and move on.


SeattleSoul, I think you are exactly right! Maybe we should post this at the top of every page, just to remind ourselves.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Janeway said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Sigh...Janeway, I have never read any such criticism on the site, nor did I claim that I had. But putting down people's plans for become politically active or whatever is every bit as bad as criticizing their craft projects, and that unfortunately happens here all the time.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I' m sorry, but I think using words like "Moochel" to refer to the president's wife or using "lazy" to refer to the president is more than "tacky." I think those words are anti-African American and exhibit prejudice. And, I think the intention is thought about before it is written, particularly in the case of using "Moochel" rather than her name. I can concede that people who live in their own world don't know that referring to the President as "lazy" is a racial slur, but once they've been told and continue to use it, it is intentional.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

alcameron said:


> I' m sorry, but I think using words like "Moochel" to refer to the president's wife or using "lazy" to refer to the president is more than "tacky." I think those words are anti-African American and exhibit prejudice. And, I think the intention is thought about before it is written, particularly in the case of using "Moochel" rather than her name. I can concede that people who live in their own world don't know that referring to the President as "lazy" is a racial slur, but once they've been told and continue to use it, it is intentional.


Do you actually believe that you can remove words from the language? If so, please start with the obscene words instead of just descriptive ones. Let's get the f-word banned. It's demeaning to people of ALL races.

Is lazy a racial slur if I use it to describe a white person? Is gay an insult if I'm talking about a happy child on a pretty day? This words have been stolen and used to beat people over the head. What a shame. I remember when profanity was excused because "it's just a word." Now the same people are offended by regular, often-used words. Lazy is an insulting word, no matter who it describes, unless you're talking about a thing, like a lazy day. Nobody gets to claim it as their own race's special insult.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > I' m sorry, but I think using words like "Moochel" to refer to the president's wife or using "lazy" to refer to the president is more than "tacky." I think those words are anti-African American and exhibit prejudice. And, I think the intention is thought about before it is written, particularly in the case of using "Moochel" rather than her name. I can concede that people who live in their own world don't know that referring to the President as "lazy" is a racial slur, but once they've been told and continue to use it, it is intentional.
> ...


The words themselves when used with their dictionary definition in mind mean one thing, but when they're used in certain contexts they mean something else. And "Moochel" has a pretty clear meaning. And I don't use the "f" word in any context.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

SettleSoul I agree with you in part.
No matter what, if our country was threaten we would all stand together as one.

We will always voice our beliefs we may not agree but at least we are free to do so, and I for one am greatful for that freedom.

When someone attacks another, I do get off on a post instead of stepping back and waiting before I post and for that I am sorry don't always say it, and know I should. Some times if I take the time and reread what is written I see that the meaning is different from what I thought it was.
Sorry, but that is my human nature, not making excuses for it, but that is the way I am.

Hate to see that someone is hurt and gives up on what they believe. 
Words are words and everone interpret's the way they feel. So I think before we get all huffy, maybe we could just go on, and put it in the back of our minds instead of using it to attack. When I have wronged you please feel free to say hey that is nasty. But in turn please respect my right to say how I feel about a certain part of our goverment.
As to saying don't call OB, did that in the fact that others on left had their say about how to call President Obama, I feel it works both ways. If I am not to do it neither is the other person. 
Now I have had my say off I go to get things done around here.
Have been doing husbands side of family history. Oh my what a joy this has been not, ever thing that I have showen him from census to how this person or that did this or that, it has to be wrong. Such as his mother listing on the boat she came here on listed as being Hebrew. I get back We are not Hebrew we are Catholic's as this is the religion he was brought up in. When doing history on family have found if have proven it with more than one place it is truth. Seem hard for him to except that families are not perfect just humans going throught life. As we all are not perfect just human.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Thanks for your thoughful response to how we express ourselves here, but I think I'll stick to saying someone is being tactless if I don't like what they've said to me. 

I get a bit huffy about the different names President Obama gets called here and wish everyone, no matter their party affiliation or opinion about someone would call them by their proper names and titles, on the principle of respecting the office if not the person occupying it. Then we can go ahead and criticize them all we want. 

One of my cousins on my father's side of the family did a huge amount of research on the family's origins and got all the way back to 1695. Ir's all completely fascinating. I've done a bit of research on my mother's side of the family. Got lots of info about her mother's side of the family but can't seem to find anything about my maternal grandfather's family.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > I' m sorry, but I think using words like "Moochel" to refer to the president's wife or using "lazy" to refer to the president is more than "tacky." I think those words are anti-African American and exhibit prejudice. And, I think the intention is thought about before it is written, particularly in the case of using "Moochel" rather than her name. I can concede that people who live in their own world don't know that referring to the President as "lazy" is a racial slur, but once they've been told and continue to use it, it is intentional.[/quote
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Thanks for your thoughful response to how we express ourselves here.
> 
> One of my cousins on my father's side of the family did a huge amount of research on the family's origins and got all the way back to 1695. Ir's all completely fascinating. I've done a bit of research on my mother's side of the family. Got lots of info about her mother's side of the family but can't seem to find anything about my maternal grandfather's family.


I know how you feel, My Great Grandfather on my dad's side was married three times. Since 1980's have been trying to find out if he divorce the second one before marrying Great Grandmother. Also can not find his father and mother listed on any paper trail from him.
Mom's side of family have trace back to Norway, My Grandmother have trace both sides one was french, the other has come from Denmark. His name was Cook, he came on the Mayflower, Yes I am a Mayflower Madame, get a kick out of watching peoples faces who do not know history, when said. Have to add no I do not walk the streets looking for a jolly good fellow. :lol:


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Theyarnlady, way cool about researching your family. One of my great-grandmothers was married at least 4 times but I don't know how many times she got divorced. One of my great-uncles' ran off to Alberta, Canada with his wife's sister. I think I like the dubious stuff more than the nice stuff sometimes. Most of my mother's side of the family came from France and most of my father's from Ireland.

Congrats on being a Mayflower Madame :!: :thumbup:


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

How on earth do you get a racial slur from the use of the word lazy?? Is anything but warm fuzzies when used to describe obama a racial slur? Please give me some examples of PC approved negative descriptors when referring to obama's abysmal presidency.



alcameron said:


> I' m sorry, but I think using words like "Moochel" to refer to the president's wife or using "lazy" to refer to the president is more than "tacky." I think those words are anti-African American and exhibit prejudice. And, I think the intention is thought about before it is written, particularly in the case of using "Moochel" rather than her name. I can concede that people who live in their own world don't know that referring to the President as "lazy" is a racial slur, but once they've been told and continue to use it, it is intentional.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> How on earth do you get a racial slur from the use of the word lazy?? Is anything but warm fuzzies when used to describe obama a racial slur? Please give me some examples of PC approved negative descriptors when referring to obama's abysmal presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't have to "get" a racial slur out of describing an African-American as "lazy." It is common knowledge, unless you are too young to remember or 
know. Your circle of friends and acquaintances may be oblivious to racial slurs, but most people just 'know' that it is a degrading term when referring to a certain race or ethnicity. There are many such racial slurs that refer to a variety of ethnic groups, and I'm sure you've heard some of them even if you're not familiar with all of them. I'm sure I'm not familiar with all of them.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Thumper5316, African-Americans were called lazy for a very long time, starting with slavery time and continuing until very recently. The word still carries an air of racism, even though the African-American condition has changed radically. Even though you aren't trying to make a racist remark, some people will hear that echo from the past and take offense.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Thumper5316, African-Americans were called lazy for a very long time, starting with slavery time and continuing until very recently. The word still carries an air of racism, even though the African-American condition has changed radically. Even though you aren't trying to make a racist remark, some people will hear that echo from the past and take offense.


Very well-said.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

I guess it's not so common in Minnesota where I grew up. But I still think that you are being over sensitive.



alcameron said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > How on earth do you get a racial slur from the use of the word lazy?? Is anything but warm fuzzies when used to describe obama a racial slur? Please give me some examples of PC approved negative descriptors when referring to obama's abysmal presidency.
> ...


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Thumper I'd like to know the same thing. It would appear that being half black exempts him from taking responsibility for his behavior and inaction. And doesn't o call his wife Moochel? That's where I first heard it.


thumper5316 said:


> How on earth do you get a racial slur from the use of the word lazy?? Is anything but warm fuzzies when used to describe obama a racial slur? Please give me some examples of PC approved negative descriptors when referring to obama's abysmal presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

alcameron said:


> SeattleSoul said:
> 
> 
> > Thumper5316, African-Americans were called lazy for a very long time, starting with slavery time and continuing until very recently. The word still carries an air of racism, even though the African-American condition has changed radically. Even though you aren't trying to make a racist remark, some people will hear that echo from the past and take offense.
> ...


It should be obvious that some words can be innocuous in one context and "fightin' words" in another...It's a unforgivable for a Caucasian to refer to an African-American as "n--gger", but many African-Americans use the word themselves with no offense meant and none taken. If site members find a certain word offensive it's common decency to avoid using them. Is it really so difficult to strike the words "lazy" and "decadent" from the list of adjectives when speaking of the President and his family?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

"Boy" is another seemingly innocent word with another absolutely hateful meaning. You might call your son this, but could you in good conscience use it when speaking to a person of color?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> I guess it's not so common in Minnesota where I grew up. But I still think that you are being over sensitive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you are in denial. I can't speak for everybody, but it would be naive of me to beleive that you or anyone in your state does not know the connotation of the word "lazy" in referring to a black American.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> I guess it's not so common in Minnesota where I grew up. But I still think that you are being over sensitive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I also grew up in Minnesota, and in my experience "white ethnic" slurs were more common simply because where I lived there were virtually no Asians, African-Americans, Latinos, etc., but there were plenty of different European ethnic groups. As I grew older, I was "introduced" to the more common words that defined other races.
(Wouldn't it be funny if we grew up in the same part of Minnesota?)


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> How do you define Obama as "lazy"? Your comments are really very demeaning...Moochel for one. Why such vitriol, what is the basis for you obvious hatred of the President? You may dislike his policies but you get downright personal in you invective against him and his wife. Do oyou feel the same way about the Congress and their lack of compromise and wanting to actually help this country? Or do you lay all the blame at the President's feet? It taks two to tango and the objectionist rep party has no desire to work together, Policy making is the art f working together and coming to some kind of compromise.


The way I see it is that the President should be the one doing everything possible to keep the Congress together. He should be the one trying to get Congress to work together, yet all he seems to do is divide Congress. He is constantly saying the republicans are the party of no, yet does nothing about Harry Reid refusing to do his job by getting the Senate to discuss any bill that was passed by the House. Obama is constantly saying that if you don't pass this the way I want it, then I will automatically veto the bill. What a great compromiser. Obama is the one that needs to drop the negative BS and get the government together so things can get done and this country can move forward. (Wasn't that the campaign slogan?). It is apparent that Obama does not have the leadership qualities to get this job done.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

I have never equated lazy with a certain group of people. That is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard. I have heard the phrases: lazy bum, I feel lazy today, lazy river, lazy bones, lazy days.......... but I mean I have never heard of the use of the word lazy used as a racial slur. So I was wondering, how as using the word lazy to refer to a person that is not motivated to do what they are suppose to be doing, it is inferred that your are only referring to a specific racial group. That is insane. This is Political Correctness going off a cliff. My life would be so empty if all I did all day is parsing words and trying to read into meanings that aren't there.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

off2knit said:


> I have never equated lazy with a certain group of people. That is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard. I have heard the phrases: lazy bum, I feel lazy today, lazy river, lazy bones, lazy days.......... but I mean I have never heard of the use of the word lazy used as a racial slur. So I was wondering, how as using the word lazy to refer to a person that is not motivated to do what they are suppose to be doing, it is inferred that your are only referring to a specific racial group. That is insane. This is Political Correctness going off a cliff. My life would be so empty if all I did all day is parsing words and trying to read into meanings that aren't there.


Apparently then you were raised in some bastion of complete racial harmony and good will--Shangri-La perhaps? Great. I suppose too you never read Gone With The Wind (where black legislators were portrayed as spending their days "easing their unaccustomed feet in and out of new shoes and eating goobers" ), never saw Birth Of A Nation (where African Americans capered up and down the halls of the legislative building slinging chicken skins and watermelon rinds).

What really astounds me is that such activities would almost be preferable to the real-life antics of Congressmen and woman (the majority of whom are lily-white) these days. This game of budgetary chicken is making us look like a nation of fools.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Janeway - I haven't taken a salary since we started our business more than 5 years ago. I put a great deal of my own money into the business, as did my partners - and we are not wealthy. We just really believe in the Fair Trade model of doing business. You can find out a great deal of iinformation about this movement, which is international in scope, by checking out The Fair Trade Federation. It is an organization in the U.S. which does check out the conditions that artisans are living under, how they are treated, how they are paid. You don't just pay dues to belong, you have to have what you are doing verified by people who actually look at what is going on. The point of Fair Trade is to give the people it works with the tools to sustain their organizations, not only give them charity, which can disappear at any time.

Our church averages around $2,500 each quarter which it gives to the various groups it helps. In addition, the value of the toiletries we gave during our 175th anniversary year was about $10,000.

As I said, I wasn't trying to blow my own horn - someone asked me what I had done personally to help solve some of the problems, and I answered.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Thanks, Susan. We work hard, but we have way too much fun, too!


susanmos2000 said:


> > Here is the website of Pardoquilts shop:
> > http://thefairtraderchicago.com/
> 
> 
> Pardo, I'm amazed! I can see you have two partners, but a business like this must keep you running from sunup to sundown (and then some). It looks fabulous! :-D


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Yes I read "Gone With The Wind", and since it was set in the 1860's, I did not dwell on something that is not time relevant today. I also read "Tom Sawyer" where words that were common place then are not used today. I also read "Uncle Tom's Cabin", and on and on. I also watch Downton Abbey, where the Brits had different classes than they do today, and where women were objects not people. Never saw "Birth Of A Nation", glad I didn't by the sounds of it. 

I grew up in Cleveland, which in the 60's was not a bastion of racial harmony. But my parents taught me that all persons were deserving of respect. I never heard racial slurs or slanderous jokes. So if you believe that being raised by wonderful parents with good values is somehow a bad thing, how sad.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Sloweygirl, our Federal Government operates under the system of "checks and balances". You are suggesting that the President violate that principle. The three branches of our Federal Government, the Judiciary, the Executive and the Legislative are limited in what they can do before they violate that guiding principle. As a result, the President can only attempt to influence the Legislative and Judicary branches of the Federal Government to a certain extent. 

Congress itself has its own obligations to act in a cooperative way to the extent they can without violating the concept of checks and balances. That isn't happening. The President is acting properly. Congress is responsible for keeping itself together. Instead of doing that, Congress is acting in opposition to the President and to the ENTIRE CITIZENRY of our country, thus having a confidence rating of 9% of our population.

We are fortunate that the pinnacle of the Judiciary, the Supreme Court, is largely composed of strict constructionists and therefore are acting within the bounds of their power.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > I have never equated lazy with a certain group of people. That is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard. I have heard the phrases: lazy bum, I feel lazy today, lazy river, lazy bones, lazy days.......... but I mean I have never heard of the use of the word lazy used as a racial slur. So I was wondering, how as using the word lazy to refer to a person that is not motivated to do what they are suppose to be doing, it is inferred that your are only referring to a specific racial group. That is insane. This is Political Correctness going off a cliff. My life would be so empty if all I did all day is parsing words and trying to read into meanings that aren't there.
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup:  :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Off2knit, you keep me in stitches. (Pardon the bad pun...) Gone With the Wind, Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Uncle Tom's Cabin and The Birth of a Nation are all fiction with a solid core of truth. I suggest that, if you don't familiarise yourself with all of those, read Mark Twain's "The Tragedy of Pudd'nhead Wilson". When you finish drying your tears I'll be interested in what you have say.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

SeattleSoul said:


> Sloweygirl, our Federal Government operates under the system of "checks and balances". You are suggesting that the President violate that principle. The three branches of our Federal Government, the Judiciary, the Executive and the Legislative are limited in what they can do before they violate that guiding principle. As a result, the President can only attempt to influence the Legislative and Judicary branches of the Federal Government to a certain extent.
> 
> Congress itself has its own obligations to act in a cooperative way to the extent they can without violating the concept of checks and balances. That isn't happening. The President is acting properly. Congress is responsible for keeping itself together. Instead of doing that, Congress is acting in opposition to the President and to the ENTIRE CITIZENRY of our country, thus having a confidence rating of 9% of our population.
> 
> We are fortunate that the pinnacle of the Judiciary, the Supreme Court, is largely composed of strict constructionists and therefore are acting within the bounds of their power.


Congress is NOT Constitutionally obligated to act in a cooperative manner. In fact, if all it did was rubber stamp whatever the president wanted it would defeat the purpose of checks and balances.

That is what the Founding Fathers wanted, and it has served us well for over 200 years. Want cooperation? Have the Senate write a budget and put it up for a vote. The House can not vote on speeches or campaign slogans. They may not pass it, but it would be a start in a new era of cooperation


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

SeattleSoul said:


> Off2knit, you keep me in stitches. (Pardon the bad pun...) Gone With the Wind, Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Uncle Tom's Cabin and The Birth of a Nation are all fiction with a solid core of truth. I suggest that, if you don't familiarise yourself with all of those, read Mark Twain's "The Tragedy of Pudd'nhead Wilson". When you finish drying your tears I'll be interested in what you have say.


Suggest all you choose to, but I know history, and do not need to familiarize myself with every piece of history to understand it. Living in the South, close to the Battles of Manassass, Spotsyvania, Richmond, Williamsburg.....I know about the "War of Northern Aggression' which Southerners call the Civil War. I spin at Monticello and Meadows Farm Plantation as a demonstrator. I was born in Williamsburg, and grew up in Cleveland, so I have lived in two wonderful areas with wonderful heritages and people.

I believe that one must never forget the past so it won't repeat itself. But to fester in the past, seems a waste of time and not learning from the lessons history taught us


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Off2knit, you keep me in stitches. (Pardon the bad pun...) Gone With the Wind, Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Uncle Tom's Cabin and The Birth of a Nation are all fiction with a solid core of truth. I suggest that, if you don't familiarise yourself with all of those, read Mark Twain's "The Tragedy of Pudd'nhead Wilson". When you finish drying your tears I'll be interested in what you have say.


I think Offtoknit was referring to the post to her that she should read those books to see what history of Black race was.
I agree with her you can read all the books you want fiction.But if you want to know what it was like for any race of people not just blacks you really should read the history books , not ones that are recent, but the ones with true history. I also would like to remark that the black people where not the only race to suffer bigotry. You will find that alot of people of different nationalitys havae been put through times of trouble for their nationalities. Such as Irish Jews asian Indian, just to name a few. 
You will not find the history of any of these people in fiction books, or as I have notice lately not even in history books that arae new, seem they leave out , or rewrite what they want to be known. Go to the historical society, and look at the books that have been written in that time, they usual are written by the people who have lived in that time. 
Gone with the Wind to funny, if you think that is what the south was like, in that time. Sorry not trying to be mean but do wish some people would really like history, as I do.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Off2knit, I am not advocating any form of rubber stamping. Congress is obliged to consider anything the President proposes in such a way that conforms to the interests of the people they represent and the system of checks and balances, just as the President is obliged to make proposals that do not violate the system of checks and balances. The two Houses of Congress have to work among themselves and their Houses to accomplish their goals, which are set by the citizens who elected them to be their representatives. I know I've just been repetitive, but I feel very strongly about the rock solid fact that we, the people, are in charge of all levels of government that we are responsibe for electing.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Theyarnlady, we do indeed need to familiarize ourselves with as much of our history as we can. Fiction gives us the emotional perspective that many books of history do not and is just as important as books of facts. Also, there are a couple of excellent biographies of the great Tecumseh that do not paint him as just some worthless red man,but documnent his true greatness.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Must put my other two cents in here.
When Obama would not even meet with the republican's in the off the cliff who do you think did?? None other then Biden, the vice President. Why could he not, instead of announcing he would have it his way or use excutive previlege to get what he wanted these are his words. Some one must have told him that if he did he could be impeach for doing so. 
He still wants it his way higher debet ceiling, and higher taxes, and that does not mean just the rich, as he would like everyone to think, that is across the board tax increases for all of us.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

You know, the man just can't win. I think he sent Joe Biden because he realizes that he's not as good at negotiating with congress as his VP, who has spent years working across the aisle. He had the sense to realize what he wasn't good at and made use of someone who could do better. In the business world, that executive would be well thought of. But, somehow, the President is supposed to do it all. I'd rather have him recognize that he would have a better chance of getting past the roadblocks by asking Biden to help him than just insisting that he would do it all himself. Do you want the job done or do you want to complain?


theyarnlady said:


> Must put my other two cents in here.
> When Obama would not even meet with the republican's in the off the cliff who do you think did?? None other then Biden, the vice President. Why could he not, instead of announcing he would have it his way or use excutive previlege to get what he wanted these are his words. Some one must have told him that if he did he could be impeach for doing so.
> He still wants it his way higher debet ceiling, and higher taxes, and that does not mean just the rich, as he would like everyone to think, that is across the board tax increases for all of us.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> You know, the man just can't win. I think he sent Joe Biden because he realizes that he's not as good at negotiating with congress as his VP, who has spent years working across the aisle. He had the sense to realize what he wasn't good at and made use of someone who could do better. In the business world, that executive would be well thought of. But, somehow, the President is supposed to do it all. I'd rather have him recognize that he would have a better chance of getting past the roadblocks by asking Biden to help him than just insisting that he would do it all himself. Do you want the job done or do you want to complain?
> 
> 
> theyarnlady said:
> ...


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

SeattleSoul said:


> Off2knit, I am not advocating any form of rubber stamping. Congress is obliged to consider anything the President proposes in such a way that conforms to the interests of the people they represent and the system of checks and balances, just as the President is obliged to make proposals that do not violate the system of checks and balances. The two Houses of Congress have to work among themselves and their Houses to accomplish their goals, which are set by the citizens who elected them to be their representatives. I know I've just been repetitive, but I feel very strongly about the rock solid fact that we, the people, are in charge of all levels of government that we are responsibe for electing.


Do not disagree, but what has Obama proposed? Where are his ideas/proposals on paper? Where is his written budget that is 4 years over due (which is illegal by the way)? Unless I am wrong, all he has proposed are speeches, ideas and rhetoric, not one thing concrete.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> SeattleSoul said:
> 
> 
> > Off2knit, you keep me in stitches. (Pardon the bad pun...) Gone With the Wind, Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Uncle Tom's Cabin and The Birth of a Nation are all fiction with a solid core of truth. I suggest that, if you don't familiarise yourself with all of those, read Mark Twain's "The Tragedy of Pudd'nhead Wilson". When you finish drying your tears I'll be interested in what you have say.
> ...


I was born and raised in the Northeast and have lived in the South a very long time, and the "war of Northern Agression" is still being fought Howeer this war began in the 50's and 60's and began with the Civil Rights Act snd desegregation. I remember when the south was a democrat stronghold. Now it is the home of angry old white men. Tell me that this does reek of racial bias.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> You know, the man just can't win. I think he sent Joe Biden because he realizes that he's not as good at negotiating with congress as his VP, who has spent years working across the aisle. He had the sense to realize what he wasn't good at and made use of someone who could do better. In the business world, that executive would be well thought of. But, somehow, the President is supposed to do it all. I'd rather have him recognize that he would have a better chance of getting past the roadblocks by asking Biden to help him than just insisting that he would do it all himself. Do you want the job done or do you want to complain?
> 
> 
> theyarnlady said:
> ...


I absolutely agree. Obama is not able to deal with the reps, the reps have ae that perectly clear.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Gee talk about racial bias, Democrat stonghold.
angry old white men. Funny I have never met any of the angry old white men when down south. 
Did ya meet any of those Hilly Billy's in Tenn, or Kentucky?? 

Hope I did not read what you posted the wrong way. But wow that is too funny.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Hey Yarnie, did you read last Friday that the top 10 worst cities to live in were all in Democratic held state, and have been that way for years?

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/06/chicago-yet-again-makes-forbes-most-miserable-cities-list/

How is that for change?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Hey Yarnie, did you read last Friday that the top 10 worst cities to live in were all in Democratic held state, and have been that way for years?
> 
> http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/06/chicago-yet-again-makes-forbes-most-miserable-cities-list/
> 
> How is that for change?


Oh too to funny, now why would that no surpise me. must be a lot of those mean angry old white men . :shock:


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Hey Yarnie, did you read last Friday that the top 10 worst cities to live in were all in Democratic held state, and have been that way for years?
> 
> http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/06/chicago-yet-again-makes-forbes-most-miserable-cities-list/
> 
> How is that for change?


And the implication is ??? Who would even think to relate worst cities to which political party holds the state?? Do you think there might be some other factors at work?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

alcameron said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Yarnie, did you read last Friday that the top 10 worst cities to live in were all in Democratic held state, and have been that way for years?
> ...


think it has to do with the post about south being a bunch of democraticly held angry old white guys.
If you check you will see these citys have democrates running them.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

alcameron said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Yarnie, did you read last Friday that the top 10 worst cities to live in were all in Democratic held state, and have been that way for years?
> ...


That eventually everything run by democrats turns to crud?


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

YarnLady & Off to knit, I do believe that what you are saying is factual regarding o's negligence. It is a sad state of affairs.



off2knit said:


> SeattleSoul said:
> 
> 
> > Off2knit, I am not advocating any form of rubber stamping. Congress is obliged to consider anything the President proposes in such a way that conforms to the interests of the people they represent and the system of checks and balances, just as the President is obliged to make proposals that do not violate the system of checks and balances. The two Houses of Congress have to work among themselves and their Houses to accomplish their goals, which are set by the citizens who elected them to be their representatives. I know I've just been repetitive, but I feel very strongly about the rock solid fact that we, the people, are in charge of all levels of government that we are responsibe for electing.
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

alcameron said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


I didn't mean "Moochel." That's obviously a dig at Michelle Obama. I mean regular, ordinary, often-used words that have been turned into something else.
I don't use the f-word either - just can't do it. At least not out loud.


----------



## wackycat4 (Jan 28, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> I don't understand what makes you say that you are taxed to support Secular Humanism. The elimination of religious teaching in public schools supports no religious institution. That is appropriate.
> 
> 
> thumper5316 said:
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

momeee said:


> YarnLady & Off to knit, I do believe that what you are saying is factual regarding o's negligence. It is a sad state of affairs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I must agree. Very disappointing, and the consequences of all this are frightening. Did you hear that Iran is stepping up its nuclear program? It only takes ONE TIME, one attack, and life will change forever. And if, heaven forbid, Iran (now friendly with Russia and China and also courting Cuba and Venezuela in our back yard) should conquer us, it's just plain and simply over.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Moochel, means something else other than a nickname for Michelle? I tried to find out if it meant something else, and could not. Just wondering if that is similar to referring to someone that supports the Tea Party and calling them a tea bagger? But that has to be a mistake. I mean, I am sure that no person part of the Democratic Party and Obama supporter would ever be that tacky and crass. (Hope I have not used any code words, but I am too lazy to check)


----------



## wackycat4 (Jan 28, 2011)

momeee said:


> Much of the evil in the world ( think about the wars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc.) happened as a result of organized religion. Many today believe that their set of beliefs (religion?) is the ONLY way. Anything done for, or in the name of god is good and will be rewarded. I reject that approach. Organized religion may claim to teach values, and morality but even the religious institutions are guilty of violating their teachings. Nothing has changed over the decades and across the continents, except it is easier to learn about the atrocities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------------
Are you actually saying Hitler was a religious person? A "traditional religious?? No wonder Obama was elected!Wackycat4


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

wackycat4 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand what makes you say that you are taxed to support Secular Humanism. The elimination of religious teaching in public schools supports no religious institution. That is appropriate.
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

wackycat4 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand what makes you say that you are taxed to support Secular Humanism. The elimination of religious teaching in public schools supports no religious institution. That is appropriate.
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Moochel, means something else other than a nickname for Michelle? I tried to find out if it meant something else, and could not. Just wondering if that is similar to referring to someone that supports the Tea Party and calling them a tea bagger? But that has to be a mistake. I mean, I am sure that no person part of the Democratic Party and Obama supporter would ever be that tacky and crass. (Hope I have not used any code words, but I am too lazy to check)


That's right - I'd almost forgotten about the teabagger tag. I'd never even heard of that one, and I've been around for a long, long time. I had to GOOGLE it!!! It's very crude, nasty, and - might I say - insulting. It's also not a word, as far as I know.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Viewed as a work of history Gone With The Wind is not worth the paper it's written on, but it does show a great deal about people's attitudes in the 30s, same for Birth Of A Nation in the early 20th century.

I assume virtually everyone has read Gone With The Wind (and has the sense to take it with a huge grain of salt), if you haven't yet seen Birth Of A Nation you're in for a real treat. Viewed from a 21st century perspective the movie is high camp--until you realize that people of the era honestly believed it. Woodrow Wilson himself said "It is like writing history with lighting. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

SHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Don't tell anyone, but teabagger is a code word. But since it is code, I can't tell you what it means. But will send you the secret decoder ring. drinkyourovaltine


----------



## wackycat4 (Jan 28, 2011)

I think it is very true that discussing religion, politics, and I forget the other is never a good idea!
Blessings upon all that want them-
I'm going to go back to knitting!!
wacky cat 4.
Sue :?:


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

wackycat4 said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > Much of the evil in the world ( think about the wars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc.) happened as a result of organized religion. Many today believe that their set of beliefs (religion?) is the ONLY way. Anything done for, or in the name of god is good and will be rewarded. I reject that approach. Organized religion may claim to teach values, and morality but even the religious institutions are guilty of violating their teachings. Nothing has changed over the decades and across the continents, except it is easier to learn about the atrocities.
> ...


Addressing the comment about evil being done in the name of religion:
Yes. Dreadful. Let's realize also that a lot of good has been done in the name of religion.

As for religion:
Even people who believe there is no God and who promote the Big Bang Theory have faith. They have faith in science, faith that the theories are correct. These theories have not been proven, and two of the most highly regarded have conflicts with one another. I think it's the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics that conflict, and an unseen, unmeasured particle has been theorized (made up) in an attempt to reconcile the two theories. We don't know much, in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

wackycat4 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand what makes you say that you are taxed to support Secular Humanism. The elimination of religious teaching in public schools supports no religious institution. That is appropriate.
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

off2knit said:


> SHHHHHHHHHHHHH
> 
> Don't tell anyone, but teabagger is a code word. But since it is code, I can't tell you what it means. But will send you the secret decoder ring. drinkyourovaltine


Thank you!! I'll be looking for it. I just hope it doesn't have a picture on it!!

:shock:

Hey - wait a minute, off2knit. You were kidding with me, weren't you? You weren't secretly INSULTING me, were you? I mean, with the ovaltine thing and all. :?:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

wackycat4 said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > Much of the evil in the world ( think about the wars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc.) happened as a result of organized religion. Many today believe that their set of beliefs (religion?) is the ONLY way. Anything done for, or in the name of god is good and will be rewarded. I reject that approach. Organized religion may claim to teach values, and morality but even the religious institutions are guilty of violating their teachings. Nothing has changed over the decades and across the continents, except it is easier to learn about the atrocities.
> ...


Yes i believe that is what she meant. funny thing he did it because he was a racist and hated the Jewish race. One man is all it took to control a nation and start war that took so many lives, don't see that as a religion.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Especially with the downsizing of the military - if anything thinks we are a superpower, better rethink that one.

How Hundreds of New Centrifuges Will Help Iran Make More Nukes, Faster
A new report prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency makes clear that Iran is preparing a dramatic acceleration in its uranium enrichment program through the installation of advanced centrifuges. Based on the data in this report, LIGNET has raised its estimate of the number of nuclear weapons Iran could potentially construct to eight if its current stockpile of enriched uranium is enriched to weapons-grade, a process that could take weeks to months.

...and from an article in the Washington Post...'Repeating a mistake by downsizing the Army again'. President Obama in announcing his new military strategy said:

Moreover, we have to remember the lessons of history. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past  after World War II, after Vietnam  when our military was left ill-prepared for the future. As commander in chief, I will not let that happen again. Not on my watch.

So, here we go again. The Obama administration WILL reduce its long-service, professional land force to pay for something called Air Sea Battle, a strategy that seeks to buy more ships and planes in order to confront China with technology rather than people. This strategy shows a degree of a-historicism that exceeds that of any post-World War II administration. So much for remembering the lessons of the past.

Heres what the lessons of the past 70 years really teach us: We cannot pick our enemies; our enemies will pick us. They will, as they have always done in the past, cede to us dominance in the air, on sea and in space because they do not have the ability to fight us there. Our enemies have observed us closely in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have learned the lessons taught by Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh and Saddam Hussein: Americas greatest vulnerability is dead Americans. So our future enemy will seek to fight us on the ground, where we have traditionally been poorly prepared. His objective will be to win by not losing, to kill as an end rather than as a means to an end. And we will enter the next war again tragically short of the precious resource that we have neglected for six administrations: our soldiers and Marines.



bonbf3 said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > YarnLady & Off to knit, I do believe that what you are saying is factual regarding o's negligence. It is a sad state of affairs.
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Would you also approve saying a Jewish prayer, and Moslim prayer and a Humanist prayer?


wackycat4 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand what makes you say that you are taxed to support Secular Humanism. The elimination of religious teaching in public schools supports no religious institution. That is appropriate.
> ...


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

bonbf3 said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > SHHHHHHHHHHHHH
> ...


You goof ball. That was what Ralphie decoded on "A Christmas Story", when he got his decoder in the mail. Sorry that is my favorite movie ever and I forget not everyone gets that reference. I even have a leg lamp.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> FYI: Hitler was raised Catholic


Yes, and Joseph Stalin was educated in a monastery. The world would have been infinitely better off if those two hadn't strayed from their respective religions.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > FYI: Hitler was raised Catholic
> ...


And maybe better if they learned to play golf and stayed on the golf course.

Sorry I could not pass that one up. :roll:  :XD: :XD:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

off2knit said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Love love loved it too. If only life was that simple again? You have the leg lamp wow lucky you. I loved the dogs and the turkey dinner, then to Chinnese resturant.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Would you also approve saying a Jewish prayer, and Moslim prayer and a Humanist prayer?
> 
> 
> wackycat4 said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

My husband, who works for the Department of Energy doing basic scientific research will definitely notice it. Determining how to cut $500,000 from their budget is not easy. That is a drop in the bucket of the total cuts, but it will be felt.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

52" one

We had turkey for dinner on Christmas, but my dogs did not eat it. We also have A Christmas Story Monopoly game.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> My husband, who works for the Department of Energy doing basic scientific research will definitely notice it. Determining how to cut $500,000 from their budget is not easy. That is a drop in the bucket of the total cuts, but it will be felt.


Especially when the cuts will start on the service men fighting oversea, and not the wastful spending being done in Washington.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > bonbf3 said:
> ...


Hmm, dare I mention that the Chinese waiters' rendition of Jingle Bells was RACIST? (Nah, I love the movie too


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

off2knit said:


> 52" one
> 
> We had turkey for dinner on Christmas, but my dogs did not eat it. We also have A Christmas Story Monopoly game.


they have a game I did not know that. You are a true Christmas story fan. Yea Ralphie.

I love the one where the boy stuck his tongue to the flag poll to funny but then it was all funny.
Gun control, you'll shot your eye out. :XD: :XD:


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Maybe Obama can get a Red Rider BB gun to practice skeet shooting with in between golf rounds


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > My husband, who works for the Department of Energy doing basic scientific research will definitely notice it. Determining how to cut $500,000 from their budget is not easy. That is a drop in the bucket of the total cuts, but it will be felt.
> ...


If Obama wanted and succeeded having the payroll tax to go up 2%, why can't the rate of increase to government budgets be cut by 2%? Isn't that fair? I wish my income was going to increase 10%, and somehow had to deal with only an 8% increase.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Maybe Obama can get a Red Rider BB gun to practice skeet shooting with in between golf rounds


Or he could get a two fore one deal, hit the golf ball up into air and use his BB gun to shoot it down.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > My husband, who works for the Department of Energy doing basic scientific research will definitely notice it. Determining how to cut $500,000 from their budget is not easy. That is a drop in the bucket of the total cuts, but it will be felt.
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

off2knit said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


 :shock: :?: :?:


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

FFFFFFF OOOOOOOOOO UUUUUUUUUUUUU RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Or should I say duck?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> FYI: Hitler was raised Catholic


I didn't know that. So was my husband, a kind and caring man. Just goes to show ya, doesn't it?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

off2knit said:


> FFFFFFF OOOOOOOOOO UUUUUUUUUUUUU RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
> 
> Or should I say duck?


quack quack would be good too. :roll:


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

off2knit said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Well, smack my head against the wall! I've only watched a little bit of that movie - know about the leg lamp. I must be a lot older than you because my favorite Christmas movie is the original "A Christmas Carol." All the actors are now surely ghosts of Christmas past! And in my day, decoder rings were a serious business. I'm really not getting one? I'll get over this, off. (Is it okay if I call you "off" now - because - you know - the leg lamp and all?) but it's going to take time.
And - goof ball? I laughed out loud at that one. You are tender-hearted, aren't you? Goof ball - I do love that.

And now - I'm going to have some hot chocolate! (Ovaltine - isn't that for kids and old folks?)
:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

momeee said:


> Especially with the downsizing of the military - if anything thinks we are a superpower, better rethink that one.
> 
> How Hundreds of New Centrifuges Will Help Iran Make More Nukes, Faster
> A new report prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency makes clear that Iran is preparing a dramatic acceleration in its uranium enrichment program through the installation of advanced centrifuges. Based on the data in this report, LIGNET has raised its estimate of the number of nuclear weapons Iran could potentially construct to eight if its current stockpile of enriched uranium is enriched to weapons-grade, a process that could take weeks to months.
> ...


And have you notice that not one person in the news media have mention this , nor any on the left. It just amazes me how people want to ignore what is going on and must think it will just go away. They did mention North Korea. Guess we will just have to wait tell it happens for the wake up call to go out.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

I heard it on the radio, I think Friday. But it was probably that evil Fox station that had it on. Banging my head with a baseball bat, should have turned on MSNBC and listened to Chris 'I get a thrill up my leg' Matthews for the real story


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

It's nice to be important
But more important to be nice.

Just quoting someone . . . .


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

off2knit said:


> I heard it on the radio, I think Friday. But it was probably that evil Fox station that had it on. Banging my head with a baseball bat, should have turned on MSNBC and listened to Chris 'I get a thrill up my leg' Matthews for the real story


Oh yes I just love Chris pearls of wisdom, with swear words thrown in on the side. He is such a de lite er isn't he.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

alcameron said:


> It's nice to be important
> But more important to be nice.
> 
> Just quoting someone . . . .


O.k. your right but just had to joke around. Sorry.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

His laboratory was NOT going to get an increase.


joeysomma said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > My husband, who works for the Department of Energy doing basic scientific research will definitely notice it. Determining how to cut $500,000 from their budget is not easy. That is a drop in the bucket of the total cuts, but it will be felt.
> ...


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Yarnie you are so right. I listen to a lot of satellite radio in my car, and the filth that comes out of some of the "Progressives" mouths are horrid on some of the radio stations. I tried one time to listen to Steffany (sp) Miller show for two weeks, just to understand their point of view. Between the bells, whistles, noises, vulgar remarks.....I lasted only 3 days. Then I tried someone else, and he was such a ranting and raving lunatic that I had to turn him off almost immediately. (Kind of a chubby guy with a gravelly/raspy voice, I'll think of it in the middle of the night of course.)

Oh well, going to get the kitchen picked up, play some computer bridge, and then off to bed


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

In fact, thiw cut is for one small part of the small research budget that congress manages to allow.


pardoquilts said:


> His laboratory was NOT going to get an increase.
> 
> 
> joeysomma said:
> ...


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> His laboratory was NOT going to get an increase.
> 
> 
> joeysomma said:
> ...


Well neither is my income, and I still have to survive, buy groceries, gas......... and payroll taxes went up 2%, property taxes up, sales tax up.... We all have to buck up, so not much sympathy for your husband's lab. At least he has a job, and since he is a federal employee he gets out of Obamacare. And that exemption is a real bone of contention with most non federal employees and non union people, because we don't get that option.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

No, actually, his laboratory is run by the University of Chicago so he is not technically a federal employee. Yes, he does still have a job. He may well have furough days, as will everyone else in his facility.


off2knit said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > His laboratory was NOT going to get an increase.
> ...


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Yarnie you are so right. I listen to a lot of satellite radio in my car, and the filth that comes out of some of the "Progressives" mouths are horrid on some of the radio stations. I tried one time to listen to Steffany (sp) Miller show for two weeks, just to understand their point of view. Between the bells, whistles, noises, vulgar remarks.....I lasted only 3 days. Then I tried someone else, and he was such a ranting and raving lunatic that I had to turn him off almost immediately. (Kind of a chubby guy with a gravelly/raspy voice, I'll think of it in the middle of the night of course.)
> 
> Oh well, going to get the kitchen picked up, play some computer bridge, and then off to bed


I can't stand the Stephanie show, either!


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Gotta love Obama's financial cliff. He wanted, he rallied for it, he signed it, and he owns it.

People were warned, they chose not to listen, or thought it would not happen. But personally, I am glad it will happen. Maybe then people will realize that we are spending more money this year than last, and this bleeding must be stopped before we all are bled dry.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Gotta love Obama's financial cliff. He wanted, he rallied for it, he signed it, and he owns it.
> 
> People were warned, they chose not to listen, or thought it would not happen. But personally, I am glad it will happen. Maybe then people will realize that we are spending more money this year than last, and this bleeding must be stopped before we all are bled dry.


it won't stop till he stops, and get a grip on being the President as he should be. I sometimes wonder if he really know what he is doing, or hasn't a clue as to what is happening.


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Momee once again you are presenting facts and not a lot of meaningless rhetoric. You are a historian and a researcher. BRAVO!



momeee said:


> Especially with the downsizing of the military - if anything thinks we are a superpower, better rethink that one.
> 
> How Hundreds of New Centrifuges Will Help Iran Make More Nukes, Faster
> A new report prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency makes clear that Iran is preparing a dramatic acceleration in its uranium enrichment program through the installation of advanced centrifuges. Based on the data in this report, LIGNET has raised its estimate of the number of nuclear weapons Iran could potentially construct to eight if its current stockpile of enriched uranium is enriched to weapons-grade, a process that could take weeks to months.
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Maybe Obama can get a Red Rider BB gun to practice skeet shooting with in between golf rounds


Now, now, you know this will be turned inti a racial slur! Have been off for sometime but there still is a lot of silence going on from the other side. Does anyone notice how "they" never comment on anything except to toot their own horn?

Been knitting while watching the Oscar awards so will post picture of how much work was completed while staying off this site!

Going to bed! Whoops have wrong side showing!


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Like that Jane!


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Janeway, Lovely, but looks very complicated.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Pretty, Janeway.

Maybe the others have nothing to say because we've made some pretty good points?


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

We the people are rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to over throw the men who would pervert the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln. Go Abe!


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> We the people are rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to over throw the men who would pervert the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln. Go Abe!


Thank you, Country Bumpkins!


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Moochel is what o calls her. I may not be spelling it correctly. Perhaps it is spelled Mooochel. Believe me I was not being creative in calling her that. It came from her dhs' own vocal cords.


off2knit said:


> Moochel, means something else other than a nickname for Michelle? I tried to find out if it meant something else, and could not. Just wondering if that is similar to referring to someone that supports the Tea Party and calling them a tea bagger? But that has to be a mistake. I mean, I am sure that no person part of the Democratic Party and Obama supporter would ever be that tacky and crass. (Hope I have not used any code words, but I am too lazy to check)


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Country Bumpkins said:
> 
> 
> > We the people are rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to over throw the men who would pervert the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln. Go Abe!
> ...


Yes, too bad Comgress doesn't listen to those they represent! I don't feel there were any good points to respond to. Besides, I was watching the Academy Awards.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

RUKnitting said:


> Moochel is what o calls her. I may not be spelling it correctly. Perhaps it is spelled Mooochel. Believe me I was not being creative in calling her that. It came from her dhs' own vocal cords.
> 
> 
> off2knit said:
> ...


Really? You heard him? I really rather doubt it.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

alcameron said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > Country Bumpkins said:
> ...


Same here, I noticed the live feed from the White House featuring Mrs. Obama. Surely someone has a comment or two to make about that!


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Andrea, there used to be an African-American minister called Reverend Narcissus. He had a big congregation and what is now called a lot of "bling". His watchword for every day was "It's nice to be nice."


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Janeway, if "the other side" you refer to means me and some others who post here, I have to tell you I had company for dinner so I wasn't putting in my two cents worth here. Now I'm officially all tuckered out and heading off to bed for a bit of reading and a lot of sleep.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

You can tell the West Coast people--the ones who are still up!


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Country Bumpkins, I'm with you and Abe. We the people are not only the masters of Congress and the Courts, but also have the great responsibility to vote, and to do our best to elect those who will serve us well. We have government by the people, for the people and of the people. Sometimes I think we forget the tremendous responsibility we have, and all too willingly neglect to shoulder the burden, which is also a tremendous privilege.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Well said.


SeattleSoul said:


> Country Bumpkins, I'm with you and Abe. We the people are not only the masters of Congress and the Courts, but also have the great responsibility to vote, and to do our best to elect those who will serve us well. We have government by the people, for the people and of the people. Sometimes I think we forget the tremendous responsibility we have, and all too willingly neglect to shoulder the burden, which is also a tremendous privilege.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Gene L Dodara, Comptroller General of the US presented his 2012 Annual Report in Testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to the House of Representatives. Reference GAO-123-449T The Gao is the governmental accountability office, the auditors, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress. It exists to support Congress in meeting it's Constitutional responsibility and help improve performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people.

He was able to identify 51 areas in which there is duplication, overlap or fragmentation as well as 19 opportunities for agencies or Congress to consider taking action that could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collection for the Treasury. He identified 130 actions for Congress.

DOE- contractor support costs. Streamline support functions estimated to cost over $5 billion at its contractor managed labor and nuclear production and testing sites in light of contractors historic fragmented approach to provide these functions.
-Nuclear Non-proliferation and Comprehensive review needed to address strategic planning limitations and potential fragmentation and overlap concerns among programs combating nuclear smuggling over seas.
-Diesel Emissions- 14 Grants and loan programs at DOE, DOT, EPA and 3 tax expenditures fund activities that have effect of reducing mobile source diesel emissions, enhanced collaboration and performance measurement and could improve these fragmented and overlapping programs.

Federal Green Building initiative- 90 to foster green building directed to look at transparency mechanisms and miscategorization of investments.

Transactions--
Since 2009 DOE has sold nearly 1,900 metric tons of natural uranium (see p 30 of report for details). According to federal law, money should be deposited in the Treasury. They found that these transactions violated the miscellaneous receipts statute.

A review of the 2010 Federal Fleet Energy goals showed that they were all not addressed by DOE. (Sidebar I find this arrogant on the DOE's part).

I have pulled out the info on the DOE but it is very telling and present throughout our government. This report is in no way complete. It is a skeleton of what Romney and Ryan were proposing based on their findings of government waste, duplication of services, duplication of forms required from various agencies and programs which don't work (ex:Head Start) and programs which are never vetted to determine if they have met their objective and programs which are outdated and have no present day relevance (Many in the DOA). 


pardoquilts said:


> My husband, who works for the Department of Energy doing basic scientific research will definitely notice it. Determining how to cut $500,000 from their budget is not easy. That is a drop in the bucket of the total cuts, but it will be felt.


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Janeway That is loverly. Is that a chenille yarn and kelly green?


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Why is it you can only cast aspersions.Take it to the bank that he called her that early in 2007. Recently he has become more sophisticated although I don't know if he can pronounce corpsman yet.


RUKnitting said:


> Moochel is what o calls her. I may not be spelling it correctly. Perhaps it is spelled Mooochel. Believe me I was not being creative in calling her that. It came from her dhs' own vocal cords.
> 
> 
> off2knit said:
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Wow! Good job!!!!! 
It looks like there is a lot of waste, overspending, and mismanagement, if the little the I read tells only part of the story. 
So....if Romney was able to ferret this out, analyze it, and make suggestions for improvements, WHY couldn't our supposed leader bother to do it,or direct others to do the same?because he didn't want to? because he didn't think it was as important as his 'agenda'? Or because he does not have a head for business affairs, didn't know enough,and didn't surround himself with qualified folks? His negligence is numbing, if not criminal.
The overspending on items that were overpriced has long been known to be a problem. who is watching the store? Where should the responsibility lie? Who is holding the govt. responsible? If this happened in private industry some people would be fired. 
This is so reminiscent of the shovel ready jobs of Solendrya, of the billions of dollars that were wasted and did nothing to stimulate the economy. Please!! No more hair brained schemes that will fill the pockets of cronies who are supposedly proposing solutions to the economic problems.



RUKnitting said:


> Gene L Dodara, Comptroller General of the US presented his 2012 Annual Report in Testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to the House of Representatives. Reference GAO-123-449T The Gao is the governmental accountability office, the auditors, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress. It exists to support Congress in meeting it's Constitutional responsibility and help improve performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
> 
> He was able to identify 51 areas in which there is duplication, overlap or fragmentation as well as 19 opportunities for agencies or Congress to consider taking action that could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collection for the Treasury. He identified 130 actions for Congress.
> 
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Wow! Good job!!!!! 
It looks like there is a lot of waste, overspending, and mismanagement, if the little the I read tells only part of the story. 
So....if Romney was able to ferret this out, analyze it, and make suggestions for improvements, WHY couldn't our supposed leader bother to do it,or direct others to do the same?because he didn't want to? because he didn't think it was as important as his 'agenda'? Or because he does not have a head for business affairs, didn't know enough,and didn't surround himself with qualified folks? His negligence is numbing, if not criminal.
The overspending on items that were overpriced has long been known to be a problem. who is watching the store? Where should the responsibility lie? Who is holding the govt. responsible? If this happened in private industry some people would be fired. 
This is so reminiscent of the shovel ready jobs of Solendrya, of the billions of dollars that were wasted and did nothing to stimulate the economy. Please!! No more hair brained schemes that will fill the pockets of cronies who are supposedly proposing solutions to the economic problems.



RUKnitting said:


> Gene L Dodara, Comptroller General of the US presented his 2012 Annual Report in Testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to the House of Representatives. Reference GAO-123-449T The Gao is the governmental accountability office, the auditors, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress. It exists to support Congress in meeting it's Constitutional responsibility and help improve performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
> 
> He was able to identify 51 areas in which there is duplication, overlap or fragmentation as well as 19 opportunities for agencies or Congress to consider taking action that could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collection for the Treasury. He identified 130 actions for Congress.
> 
> ...


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Agree with you. The question is "How do we get the populous educated?" And I include both conservatives and liberals. Many voters couldn't tell you who was the Secretary of State.


SeattleSoul said:


> Country Bumpkins, I'm with you and Abe. We the people are not only the masters of Congress and the Courts, but also have the great responsibility to vote, and to do our best to elect those who will serve us well. We have government by the people, for the people and of the people. Sometimes I think we forget the tremendous responsibility we have, and all too willingly neglect to shoulder the burden, which is also a tremendous privilege.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

THis is horrifying...I recommend that you check out http://usdebtclock.org/# to get an idea of how fiscally irresponsible the federal government has become.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
www.usdebtclock.org
US National Debt Clock : Real Time U.S. National Debt Clock


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Momeee You must have a research staff working for you. This is absolutely amazing and so much info all together in one place. And I agree it is also frightening. We need to share this with our children. Thanks.

I suggest everyone avail themselves of this site.It's a bookmark.


momeee said:


> THis is horrifying...I recommend that you check out http://usdebtclock.org/# to get an idea of how fiscally irresponsible the federal government has become.
> 
> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
> www.usdebtclock.org
> US National Debt Clock : Real Time U.S. National Debt Clock


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Just saw a news this morning (ABC's local channel, so not to be accused of only watching Fox) gas prices are 47 cents higher than last month. Just one month after Obama started his 2nd term. That is over a dollar higher in just 4 years. For someone that must drive so much, that is financially crushing.

What was Michelle Obama doing on the Oscars? Talk about tacky. Can't imagine other First Ladies needing such attention.


----------



## spinninggoddess (Jan 4, 2013)

I agree with you off2knit. I do not think she needs to be the center of attention. This was a night for honoring artists and their work. Putting herself in the limelight, took away the attention that the artists worked so hard for and deserved. She appears to think herself as a celebrity. I can't imagine Queen Elizabeth acting in such a self absorbed way.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

RUKnitting - Your information is probably true for the entire DOE. I think similar situations occur in many areas of government. This attitude of eating at the public trough is not new to the present administration, however. The vastly overpriced hammers and toilets came to light in the 80s. I have watched my husband struggle with building new research projects, and, believe me, he watches costs like a hawk. He also makes it his business to know what things cost before they are bid on - no $500 hammers in his lab. Sometimes, though, things do cost more than we, as citizens who don't understand all of the ins and outs of things, think they should. There are legitimate safety rules, for example, which protect workers but also add to the cost of things. 30-second sound bites don't provide much useful information.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Mrs. Obama wouldn't have appeared on the Oscars if she hadn't been invited. And, Queen Elizabeth lives in a very different world. Like every First Lady, Mrs. Obama works long hours at an unpaid position. She keeps her girls out of the limelight, and done a huge amount of work for veterans families and to help improve the health of our nations children. She is particularly effective in low income communities - I just saw information that says childhood obesity levels are dropping in those neighborhoods, which can only be good.

I personally thought that the segment with her just made things long, at that point in the Oscars, but the producers obviously thought it was a good idea.


spinninggoddess said:


> I agree with you off2knit. I do not think she needs to be the center of attention. This was a night for honoring artists and their work. Putting herself in the limelight, took away the attention that the artists worked so hard for and deserved. She appears to think herself as a celebrity. I can't imagine Queen Elizabeth acting in such a self absorbed way.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Yes, it's wonderful that we know so little about the Obama girls--let them live as normal a life as possible for as long as they can. I'm no fan of the media, but I give them credit for leaving those girls alone, seems like they've learned something since the days of Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > bonbf3 said:
> ...


I think you just made the comment!


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

SeattleSoul said:


> Country Bumpkins, I'm with you and Abe. We the people are not only the masters of Congress and the Courts, but also have the great responsibility to vote, and to do our best to elect those who will serve us well. We have government by the people, for the people and of the people. Sometimes I think we forget the tremendous responsibility we have, and all too willingly neglect to shoulder the burden, which is also a tremendous privilege.


We in Georgia were fortunate to have Saxby Chambliss as our Senator. He was always responsive to his constituents, and he worked hard for the values we hold dear. Unfortunately, he's not seeking re-election - due to the tone in Washington. I'd say he found it impossible to accomplish anything with the unrelenting bipartisanship. It seems to me that the bipartisanship is fed in part by the citizens, who become incensed with one another over differences in views. (Just reading this forum shows us that.) People actually seem to hate one another over policies. So wrong in a country as bountiful and beautiful as ours. The bipartisanship is also fed in part by the president, whose speeches and actions seem disdainful of honest disagreement and intolerant of any opposition. The branches of government are supposed to balance each other and work together to lead this country. How we get back to that - when their constituents are out for blood - I don't know. I think Congress IS representing their constituents, who are angry and frustrated and demanding of getting their way - on both sides.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

RUKnitting said:


> Gene L Dodara, Comptroller General of the US presented his 2012 Annual Report in Testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to the House of Representatives. Reference GAO-123-449T The Gao is the governmental accountability office, the auditors, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress. It exists to support Congress in meeting it's Constitutional responsibility and help improve performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
> 
> He was able to identify 51 areas in which there is duplication, overlap or fragmentation as well as 19 opportunities for agencies or Congress to consider taking action that could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collection for the Treasury. He identified 130 actions for Congress.
> 
> ...


Way to go lady just the facts,I for one found it very informative. Thank you.
It's amazing how much waste there is in our goverment.


----------



## CarolfromTX (Nov 30, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Yes, it's wonderful that we know so little about the Obama girls--let them live as normal a life as possible for as long as they can. I'm no fan of the media, but I give them credit for leaving those girls alone, seems like they've learned something since the days of Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton.


It's too bad the hypocritical liberal media didn't extend that same courtesy to the Bush twins. And as far as MO improving the health of our children? Seriously? I'm in the public schools three times a week or more, and you should see some of the snacks the kids choose. Beside which, I am sick and tired of the Nanny State telling me what I can and can't do. Michelle, just like her husband, is an empty suit.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

momeee said:


> THis is horrifying...I recommend that you check out http://usdebtclock.org/# to get an idea of how fiscally irresponsible the federal government has become.
> 
> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
> www.usdebtclock.org
> US National Debt Clock : Real Time U.S. National Debt Clock


thank you momeee, isn't it mind boogling to see the outlay of money we do not have.And people wonder why we are against the goverment and what is being done or should I say not being done.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I don't believe there is anyone who is against ferreting out waste in government spending. Just what constitutes waste may be in question.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> RUKnitting said:
> 
> 
> > Gene L Dodara, Comptroller General of the US presented his 2012 Annual Report in Testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to the House of Representatives. Reference GAO-123-449T The Gao is the governmental accountability office, the auditors, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress. It exists to support Congress in meeting it's Constitutional responsibility and help improve performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
> ...


I agree. I sometimes wonder if we simply have all the wrong people running this show. I say that in a totally bipartisan way. The government has gotten large to the point that no one understands all of it - and the parts aren't working together too well. By that I don't mean the people - I mean the "machine" of government. The whole thing - too big - unmanageable.

Maybe we need an efficiency expert - remember them?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Just saw a news this morning (ABC's local channel, so not to be accused of only watching Fox) gas prices are 47 cents higher than last month. Just one month after Obama started his 2nd term. That is over a dollar higher in just 4 years. For someone that must drive so much, that is financially crushing.
> 
> What was Michelle Obama doing on the Oscars? Talk about tacky. Can't imagine other First Ladies needing such attention.


That was when I turned the channel to take a picture of the work done while watching TV. Mrs O had no place on the Oscars so I missed the Best picture award because I turned her Off.

No the shawl is not complicated as it is just knitting short rows turn and knit back which makes the rows fan out. At the end increasing one stitch before end of row then after 6 rows simply knit 2 rows of green.

It is Caron one pound yarn in black and green that was given to me along with the pattern so thought I would start it during the Oscars. I don't want to put it down as it is so much fun. The pattern was purchased but don't know where.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> SeattleSoul said:
> 
> 
> > Country Bumpkins, I'm with you and Abe. We the people are not only the masters of Congress and the Courts, but also have the great responsibility to vote, and to do our best to elect those who will serve us well. We have government by the people, for the people and of the people. Sometimes I think we forget the tremendous responsibility we have, and all too willingly neglect to shoulder the burden, which is also a tremendous privilege.
> ...


Yes I agree with what you have posted. But I also think this administration has a policy of divide and concur. I think he is succeeding in it too.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Our current two-party system has some fundamental flaws...I'm guessing the GOP will win the next Presidential election, and whoever wins will of course spend most his (or perhaps her) time dismantling Obama's programs. And when the Democrats take over four or eight years later they'll do exactly the same thing. It's like Sisyphus pushing the rock uphill only to have it tumble back down every time.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Mrs. Obama wouldn't have appeared on the Oscars if she hadn't been invited. And, Queen Elizabeth lives in a very different world. Like every First Lady, Mrs. Obama works long hours at an unpaid position. She keeps her girls out of the limelight, and done a huge amount of work for veterans families and to help improve the health of our nations children. She is particularly effective in low income communities - I just saw information that says childhood obesity levels are dropping in those neighborhoods, which can only be good.
> 
> I personally thought that the segment with her just made things long, at that point in the Oscars, but the producers obviously thought it was a good idea.
> 
> ...


Well did you see her shaking her boogie on TV cannot remember where I saw it, but it was done in very bad taste. She should be above those things as even the news person said such a change from Mrs. Kennedy.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Mrs. Obama and the Oscars, your kidding me. Didn't watch it, wow. Doesn't surprise me though. Some in Hollywood biggest supports of Obama.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Mrs. Obama wouldn't have appeared on the Oscars if she hadn't been invited. And, Queen Elizabeth lives in a very different world. Like every First Lady, Mrs. Obama works long hours at an unpaid position. She keeps her girls out of the limelight, and done a huge amount of work for veterans families and to help improve the health of our nations children. She is particularly effective in low income communities - I just saw information that says childhood obesity levels are dropping in those neighborhoods, which can only be good.
> ...


I do like her bang's though, big news on News station you know. 
Must be more important then what is really going on in this country.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Janeway love the shawl, can't wait to see the finish project.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

CB love what you posted about Lincoln.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Gee talk about racial bias, Democrat stonghold.
> angry old white men. Funny I have never met any of the angry old white men when down south.
> Did ya meet any of those Hilly Billy's in Tenn, or Kentucky??
> 
> Hope I did not read what you posted the wrong way. But wow that is too funny.


Only someone who is in denial would think this is funny I have lived in Kentucky and yes there are angry old white men and women there, Keep deluding yourself. The rep party is on a shoot yourself in the food trajectory. It would seem that you are part of the problem.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Gee talk about racial bias, Democrat stonghold.
> angry old white men. Funny I have never met any of the angry old white men when down south.
> Did ya meet any of those Hilly Billy's in Tenn, or Kentucky??
> 
> Hope I did not read what you posted the wrong way. But wow that is too funny.


Only someone who is in denial would think this is funny I have lived in Kentucky and yes there are angry old white men and women there, Keep deluding yourself. The rep party is on a shoot yourself in the food trajectory. It would seem that you are part of the problem.
But I am glad that I have provided some amusement for you. Keep laughing as Rome burns.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Mrs. Obama wouldn't have appeared on the Oscars if she hadn't been invited. And, Queen Elizabeth lives in a very different world. Like every First Lady, Mrs. Obama works long hours at an unpaid position. She keeps her girls out of the limelight, and done a huge amount of work for veterans families and to help improve the health of our nations children. She is particularly effective in low income communities - I just saw information that says childhood obesity levels are dropping in those neighborhoods, which can only be good.
> ...


Times are different now, and if you want to engage the young people in the conversation - a very good idea, in my opinion - you have to let them know that not everyone in Washington is really old! Mrs. Obama is a good dancer. How terrific!


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Hey Yarnie, did you read last Friday that the top 10 worst cities to live in were all in Democratic held state, and have been that way for years?
> 
> http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/06/chicago-yet-again-makes-forbes-most-miserable-cities-list/
> 
> How is that for change?


Several of those states do have rep govs.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

alcameron said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Yarnie, did you read last Friday that the top 10 worst cities to live in were all in Democratic held state, and have been that way for years?
> ...


Couldn't be any other factors. Must be Obamas fault.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Yes, it's wonderful that we know so little about the Obama girls--let them live as normal a life as possible for as long as they can. I'm no fan of the media, but I give them credit for leaving those girls alone, seems like they've learned something since the days of Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton.


I don't think anyone is really interested in those girls is why they are left alone in the news media. Why should anyone care as they are in the WH because of their father not any choice of their own. They should have a normal life as possible.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Wasteful spending, a Senator from the great state of Wisconsin Senator Proxmire would put out ever month what goverment was spending on wasted money in Washington. 

Our present Governor has lead Wisconsin into the red. 
Yet the Dems mounted a recall, guess what they lost again.
Seem not all in this state want to have to go into debt. 

Glad I do not live in states that are bankrupt like Calif.
Mich. Or even like cities Chicogo for one.

it is not just fedreal goverment spending more then they have, seem a lot of states and cities have lost control too


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Absolutely, must be the dems fault, reps have never done anything to bring down our country.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > SeattleSoul said:
> ...


I think he's succeeding, too. This is the worst thing for our country - divide and conquer. There are those who are watching us divide ourselves until all the pieces fall apart - and they are eager to rush in and conquer.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


Right - the bangs make it all worthwhile. I think her appearance at the Oscars makes them look even more hungry for attention. But - those who love them do so unconditionally - and those who don't just have their opinions verified.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > bonbf3 said:
> ...


Ah I knew I spelled conquer wrong thanks for spelling it right for me. :thumbup:


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

wackycat4 said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand what makes you say that you are taxed to support Secular Humanism. The elimination of religious teaching in public schools supports no religious institution. That is appropriate.
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Moochel, means something else other than a nickname for Michelle? I tried to find out if it meant something else, and could not. Just wondering if that is similar to referring to someone that supports the Tea Party and calling them a tea bagger? But that has to be a mistake. I mean, I am sure that no person part of the Democratic Party and Obama supporter would ever be that tacky and crass. (Hope I have not used any code words, but I am too lazy to check)


False comparison.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Janeway said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > Just saw a news this morning (ABC's local channel, so not to be accused of only watching Fox) gas prices are 47 cents higher than last month. Just one month after Obama started his 2nd term. That is over a dollar higher in just 4 years. For someone that must drive so much, that is financially crushing.
> ...


It looks wonderful, love doing short rows, isn't it neat to see how it works out. When first doing them until I got a head a bit didn't see the difference.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

So, let me get this right. When the President stands back and tries to let congress do what it is paid to do, he's lacking leadership. But, when he puts forth programs he thinks are important, which the majority of Americans must agree with, since they re-elected him, then he is devisive. And, if he sends in Joe Biden to try to create some kind of compromise (which means both sides get something and neither side gets everything it wants), he's lacking leadership. BUT, if he decides he's tired of the obstructionists in congress and threatens to use his veto powers - something I'm sure no other President has ever done - He wants to divide the country. Can't have it both ways, folks.


bonbf3 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > bonbf3 said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Nope - no praying in school. Period.


rocky1991 said:


> wackycat4 said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

> I don't understand what makes you say that you are taxed to support Secular Humanism. The elimination of religious teaching in public schools supports no religious institution. That is appropriate.
> 
> 
> > There is nothing to keep a child in a public school from engaging in a moment or two of silent prayer. Those who demand special areas and special times for this activity are simply showboating themselves and their religion. Not what Jesus advocated.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> wackycat4 said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > wackycat4 said:
> ...


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

alcameron said:


> It's nice to be important
> But more important to be nice.
> 
> Just quoting someone . . . .


I am afraid you are speaking to deaf(dumb) ears. This conversation can only get worse, hard to beleive, but that is the only way this discussion will go. The dems are the cause of all evils in this country and our only hope are the reps. These are the angry old white men/women, who will never change their mminds nor think critically, Hateful is the only word I can think of, and with that,,,,,,,I am outta here,. Keep up the good fight, but expect nothing, because you have no one who will listen. Probably tea baggers, no code word here, I mean it.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

off2knit said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > His laboratory was NOT going to get an increase.
> ...


Payroll taxes did not go up,, they went down because of Obama and back to original rates because of reps.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > Gee talk about racial bias, Democrat stonghold.
> ...


Harsh. Personal attack not necessary to make your point. She's just saying she doesn't meet angry old white men and women. No need to call her part of the problem. That's what I mean - we get so angry with one another over disagreements. The American people are so stressed, so unhappy. Sad. I remember a friend saying - maybe ten years ago - that someone from Europe said she loved Americans because we are so happy. No more.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > Gee talk about racial bias, Democrat stonghold.
> ...


You miss the point I was making, You called the southern men old and angry, thought you must think that people in Tenn. and Kentucky were hill billy's too. It's called racistizm in my book.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


Probably because she is one of them.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


wrong. :thumbdown:


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Janeway said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Mrs. Obama wouldn't have appeared on the Oscars if she hadn't been invited. And, Queen Elizabeth lives in a very different world. Like every First Lady, Mrs. Obama works long hours at an unpaid position. She keeps her girls out of the limelight, and done a huge amount of work for veterans families and to help improve the health of our nations children. She is particularly effective in low income communities - I just saw information that says childhood obesity levels are dropping in those neighborhoods, which can only be good.
> ...


I have said before o and mo are just actors. Why wouldn't actor's be on the Oscars? Actors acting like president and first lady. They shall have won the best actress and actor. They sure have fooled alot of people!


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


Thank you for the comment. I so like to know how you truly feel.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


Oh yes they are when you do not know what was said , and as you think you have all the answer's .


----------



## Mz Molly (May 31, 2012)

DOES ANYONE HERE REMEMBER WHAT THE ORIGINAL TOPIC WAS?

IT SEEMS TO ME, JUST MY OPINION, Some have gotten WAAAAYYYY of track. 94 pages of non stop what???????? 

Are you people for real????????


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Mz Molly said:


> DOES ANYONE HERE REMEMBER WHAT THE ORIGINAL TOPIC WAS?
> 
> IT SEEMS TO ME, JUST MY OPINION, Some have gotten WAAAAYYYY of track. 94 pages of non stop what????????
> 
> Are you people for real????????


yes to all your questions. I reguard myself as a perfect off the wall nutty person. :XD: :XD: :roll:


----------



## Mz Molly (May 31, 2012)

You all are fighting over stupid stuff. Yep stupid stuff.

Everyone and I do mean EVERYONE knew what kind of a man Obama was during his first term. Now if you all are all that upset .... WHO IN THE HECK voted him in again?????????


You all are saying mean stupid things to each other and this needs to stop. You are feeding into what he wants to happen. All of us fighting against each other so he can pass law after law with out congress consent and we are busy fighting each other.

We are supposed to be friends here. You all are saying things you will SURELY regret later and you won't be able to take it back.


PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE I BEG YOU please do not post any more notes here. Close this horrible topic and forgive eachother and go about creating beautiful things with yarn.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Just saw a news this morning (ABC's local channel, so not to be accused of only watching Fox) gas prices are 47 cents higher than last month. Just one month after Obama started his 2nd term. That is over a dollar higher in just 4 years. For someone that must drive so much, that is financially crushing.
> 
> What was Michelle Obama doing on the Oscars? Talk about tacky. Can't imagine other First Ladies needing such attention.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Nicely put. The os seem to love the lime light, don't they?



spinninggoddess said:


> I agree with you off2knit. I do not think she needs to be the center of attention. This was a night for honoring artists and their work. Putting herself in the limelight, took away the attention that the artists worked so hard for and deserved. She appears to think herself as a celebrity. I can't imagine Queen Elizabeth acting in such a self absorbed way.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Wow! I spend less than 24 hours without reading what's been posted here and find pages and pages of remarks to read and consider. Here's my first remark of the day. As you all have probably noticed, I can make great numbers of remarks. Just pass 'em on by if you like.

Secular Humanism is a philosophy, and, while it seems like a religion at times, it has no churches or specific places where people gather regularly to worship. It seems to me that it influences people's social and political beliefs instead of acting as a religion.

As many of us know and have remarked on here, the First Amendment gives freedom from and of religion. Besides preventing the establishment of a state church, it works to separate religious institutions from all levels of government. This means that religious activities are prohibited in all kinds of government institutions. That's why we see creches being prohibited from erected in front of City Halls. 

In the United States, school prayer is proscribed in accordance with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Several Supreme Court cases have upheld this prohibition, and the Fourteenth Amendment extended the scope of the entire First Amendment to all levels of government, including the state level, and their public schools. There have been a great number of cases in both state federal and the Supreme Courts. It's a long enough list that I'm going to let anyone who's interested in finding out about them to google the subject.

No student in any public school is allowed to pray out loud, and teachers are not allowed to read from the sacred texts of any religion. I think we tend to forget how completely the First Amendment separates Church and State; Most importantly, it leaves the practice and teaching of religion to our churches, temples and mosques, and individual homes. I think this is a good thing because the most correct teaching of any religion takes place where its experts are, that is, where people gather to practice their religions. The family gives its children ongoing support and understanding of their particular beliefs.

I know this is kind of a long post, but I hope everyone will find it interesting and informative.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > Wasteful spending, a Senator from the great state of Wisconsin Senator Proxmire would put out ever month what goverment was spending on wasted money in Washington.
> ...


Your right have to really learn to wait tell brain is function in the morning before posting.
I voted for Proxmire too. Gee I wonder what the gang on here will think of us. Maybe I will now be called two face too. :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Thank you for a concise reminder of the 1st. Amendment.


SeattleSoul said:


> Wow! I spend less than 24 hours without reading what's been posted here and find pages and pages of remarks to read and consider. Here's my first remark of the day. As you all have probably noticed, I can make great numbers of remarks. Just pass 'em on by if you like.
> 
> Secular Humanism is a philosophy, and, while it seems like a religion at times, it has no churches or specific places where people gather regularly to worship. It seems to me that it influences people's social and political beliefs instead of acting as a religion.
> 
> ...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Ruknitting, thank you for the very informative post about Gene L Dodara, Comptroller General of the US 2012 annual report. I 've copied it so I can read it at leisure and take more time to think about it.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


Just like Reagan...except his interpretation of the role of President should have won him the Golden Turkey Award.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> rocky1991 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


There are angry old AND young men and women everywhere! Just look at our forum.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

> If anyone knew what the Constituion meant, it was the Founding Fathers.


Yes, and under the Founding Fathers slavery was legal. I'm sure some feel this was a grand institution and would love to see it brought back, but that isn't going to happen.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


No - Yarnie is NOT an angry woman. She is a clear-headed person with sound opinions born of life experiences. Her words are informative and interesting.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Janeway said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


Now that was a clever connection, CountryB.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > > If anyone knew what the Constituion meant, it was the Founding Fathers.
> ...


Yes, and that was perfectly legal under the Founding Fathers. Those (white) men may have been well-educated and intelligent, but they were not gods.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > susanmos2000 said:
> ...


And they never put themselfs forth as God's they cared more for their country, then some who came after them. I could name a few. 
Also about slaves did you know that in their own country of Africa, their own race where the ones who sold them to those nasty white men. How is that for loving your fellow man.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


did you read what you posted?? would love to have slavery back?? What and where did you come up with that theory??
or statement??? I can not believe you would even post that it is just plain stupid to me.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Mrs. Obama was clearly in the White House, with a number of military people in dress blues. She appeared on a screen, not in person.


joeysomma said:


> I wonder how much the federal government paid for Mrs Obama to attend the Oacars. I would think that amount could have been used to replace some of the amount being cut. Even if she was invited, she could have refused, saying it was in the best interest of her country to not attend.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

It is called a conversation.


Mz Molly said:


> DOES ANYONE HERE REMEMBER WHAT THE ORIGINAL TOPIC WAS?
> 
> IT SEEMS TO ME, JUST MY OPINION, Some have gotten WAAAAYYYY of track. 94 pages of non stop what????????
> 
> Are you people for real????????


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > > If anyone knew what the Constituion meant, it was the Founding Fathers.
> ...


 So what? We also used to bleed people to cure their illnesses, and believe that you could tell if someone was a witch by tying them up and throwing them into water; if they sank, they were clearly a witch. Things change.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

You can choose tnot to follow the thread any time you like.


Mz Molly said:


> You all are fighting over stupid stuff. Yep stupid stuff.
> 
> Everyone and I do mean EVERYONE knew what kind of a man Obama was during his first term. Now if you all are all that upset .... WHO IN THE HECK voted him in again?????????
> 
> ...


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

The past is history. We live in the present and if possible need to correct the failures of the past and focus on the future of our country. This report was researched and written by our government experts who I would hope know the "ins and outs of things". Lets hope that someone in the government knows what they are doing. Your husband being in a position of authority what did he do to remedy this misuse of funds and failure to return money from sales in compliance with the miscellaneous receipts statute?


pardoquilts said:


> RUKnitting - Your information is probably true for the entire DOE. I think similar situations occur in many areas of government. This attitude of eating at the public trough is not new to the present administration, however. The vastly overpriced hammers and toilets came to light in the 80s. I have watched my husband struggle with building new research projects, and, believe me, he watches costs like a hawk. He also makes it his business to know what things cost before they are bid on - no $500 hammers in his lab. Sometimes, though, things do cost more than we, as citizens who don't understand all of the ins and outs of things, think they should. There are legitimate safety rules, for example, which protect workers but also add to the cost of things. 30-second sound bites don't provide much useful information.


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

He also represented the views of some outside the state of Georgia. I was sorry when I learned he would not seek re-election.[/quote]

We in Georgia were fortunate to have Saxby Chambliss as our Senator. He was always responsive to his constituents, and he worked hard for the values we hold dear. Unfortunately, he's not seeking re-election - due to the tone in Washington. I'd say he found it impossible to accomplish anything with the unrelenting bipartisanship. It seems to me that the bipartisanship is fed in part by the citizens, who become incensed with one another over differences in views. (Just reading this forum shows us that.) People actually seem to hate one another over policies. So wrong in a country as bountiful and beautiful as ours. The bipartisanship is also fed in part by the president, whose speeches and actions seem disdainful of honest disagreement and intolerant of any opposition. The branches of government are supposed to balance each other and work together to lead this country. How we get back to that - when their constituents are out for blood - I don't know. I think Congress IS representing their constituents, who are angry and frustrated and demanding of getting their way - on both sides.[/quote]


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

RUKnitting said:


> The past is history. We live in the present and if possible need to correct the failures of the past and focus on the future of our country. This report was researched and written by our government experts who I would hope know the "ins and outs of things". Lets hope that someone in the government knows what they are doing. Your husband being in a position of authority what did he do to remedy this misuse of funds and failure to return money from sales in compliance with the miscellaneous receipts statute? What makes you think he had any authority to do anything about whatever you are talking about? He is the Operations Manager for one part of a National User Research Facility. He does keep very close watch on what is spent in his lab.
> 
> 
> pardoquilts said:
> ...


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

I've often thought ...Can we reach the end of knowledge? And then yesterday I read about the possibility, very real possibility that the computer will be able to out think the human. Of course when you consider prime numbers it already has on one level.

We need people in government besides attorneys. More representative expertise looking at problems from different perspective would give greater perspective in solving the problems. The outgoing president of China has an engineering background. We should be electing more scientific minded individuals especially in view of the present important role science . We would also be better off if the "brains" in DC had thought to have clinical physicians and health care providers input to obama care.


bonbf3 said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > RUKnitting said:
> ...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> SeattleSoul said:
> 
> 
> > As many of us know and have remarked on here, the First Amendment gives freedom from and of religion. Besides preventing the establishment of a state church, it works to separate religious institutions from all levels of government. This means that religious activities are prohibited in all kinds of government institutions. That's why we see creches being prohibited from erected in front of City Halls.
> ...


You ask some good questions that have been asked many times. The short answer to them is that the Supreme Court has had a major role in upholding the issues you ask about. The material quoted below should give you a sense of how complicated and lengthy the process of making the issues you ask about the law of the land.
From the Oxford Guide to the The US Government: 
1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There are two parts to this constitutional provision about religion: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

Establishment clause

Americans have always agreed that the establishment clause bans government actions establishing or promoting an official religion. Americans have argued vehemently, however, about whether the establishment clause strictly prohibits all government involvement in support of religion.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 that the intent of the 1st Amendment was to build a wall of separation between church and state. Justice Hugo Black agreed with Jefferson in writing for the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947), the case that began the ongoing contemporary debate about the meaning of the establishment clause. Justice Black wrote that neither federal nor state governments can act to aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. The Everson decision was the first time the Court applied the 1st Amendment's establishment clause to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Justice Black, like Thomas Jefferson, held an absolutist position on the meaning of the establishment clause. Absolutists argue for complete separation of government from religious activity. According to the absolutists, religious activity should be carried out solely in the private sphere of society, free of both government interference and government support.

Since the earliest years of the republic, many Americans have disagreed with the absolutist position on church-state relations. For example, Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the Court in Zorach v. Clauson (1952), argued that the 1st Amendment does not say that in every and all respect there shall be a separation of church and state. In Zorach, the Court approved a program whereby public school students could be released during school hours to receive religious instruction, but not within the public school facilities. The Zorach decision was the first in which the Court accommodated a relationship between church and state in a nonpreferential and voluntary program of religious education. However, Zorach was a very small breach in the wall of separation supported by the Everson case and later Court rulings.

Since the Everson decision in 1947, the Court has for the most part rejected the nonpreferentialist interpretation of the establishment clause, in which minimal government support of religion is permitted as long as it does not give preference to a particular religious denomination. Other key cases supporting strict separation of church and state are Engel v. Vitale (1962), Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), and Wallace v. Jaffree (1985). With these decisions, the Court has overturned state laws that require or sanction prayer and Bible-reading activities in public schools. These prohibitions apply even when the prayers or religious activities at issue are nondenominational, nonpreferential, and voluntary.

In Lee v. Weisman (1992) the Court prohibited prayers as part of a public school's formal graduation ceremony. A major factor in the case was the direction of the ceremony by school officials. The Court stressed that under the establishment clause, public authorities are forbidden to sanction even nondenominational or supposedly voluntary prayers. Finally, in this case, as in others of its type, the Court emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of individuals in the minority against the control or coercion of majority rule and peer pressure. However, students remain free to organize, on their own and without school support, voluntary religious programs associated with graduation from school. In 1993 the Supreme Court let stand, without comment, a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that upheld a Texas public school district's policy of permitting students to lead voluntary prayers at graduation ceremonies.

In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) the Court maintained a long-standing prohibition against prayer at public school events and ruled that student-led prayer at public high school football games was unconstitutional. Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented, as did Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and continued in his opposition to the strict separation of government and religion.

In 1985 Rehnquist had expressed strong opposition to the absolutist position developed by the Court since the Everson decision. In his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree, Rehnquist wrote, The establishment clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the federal government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religions.

Justice Rehnquist and others support a position referred to as nonpreferentialist. The position rejects Jefferson's wall of separation viewpoint. Nonpreferentialists assert that government should be able to aid religious activity, as long as the support would be provided equally to all religions. That is, no religious denomination would be favored or preferred over others.

The Lemon Test, developed by the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), was an attempt to accommodate some modest relationships between church and state. The test involves three standards for deciding whether federal or state aid to religious schools or programs is constitutional. The Lemon Test says that a statute does not violate the establishment clause if its purpose is secular or nonreligious, if it neither promotes nor restricts religion in its primary effects, and if it does not bring about excessive government entanglement with religion.

During the 1980s the Supreme Court moved slightly in the direction of accommodation between church and state. In Marsh v. Chambers (1983), the Court held that the Nebraska legislature could begin its sessions with prayers led by a paid chaplain. In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) the Court upheld the placing of a crêche, a Christian nativity scene, at public expense on public property in front of a city hall at Christmastime. The display, the Court held, was permissible because it was within the context of a larger exhibit that emphasized secular or nonreligious objects, such as a Santa Claus, reindeers, and talking wishing wells. However, in Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1989), the Court ruled that an exclusively religious exhibit, a Jewish menorah and a creche, could not be displayed in a government building because this kind of religious exhibit violated the establishment clause.

Another move toward accommodation of church and state was made by the Court in Zobrest v. Catalina School District (1993). The Court ruled that a deaf student at a private parochial school (run by the Catholic church) could be assisted by a publicly funded sign-language interpreter. This kind of aid helps the student, not the Church, said the Court. It therefore does not violate the 1st Amendment's establishment clause.

Free exercise clause

The free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment has not provoked as much controversy as the establishment clause. This clause clearly indicates that government must neither interfere with religious practices of individuals nor prescribe their religious beliefs. From the founding era of the United States until today, most Americans have heartily agreed that individuals have the right to freely express their religious beliefs in the private sphere of society.

The Supreme Court has protected the free-exercise rights of religious minorities since the 1940s. In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) the free exercise clause was for the first time incorporated by the Court under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and applied to state governments. The outcome was the protection of the right of Jehovah's Witnesses, a minority religion, to peacefully distribute religious information to people in their neighborhoods with the aim of winning converts.

In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) the Court struck down a state flag-salute law because it forced some students, who were Jehovah's Witnesses, to violate their religious beliefs. Writing for the Court, Justice Robert Jackson emphasized that the individual's right to free exercise of religion was placed by the 1st Amendment beyond the reach of majorities and officials. He emphasized that it was the Court's responsibility to protect this constitutional right of individuals against the power of majority rule, whenever the majority, acting through representatives in government, might try to deny that right to unpopular minority groups.

Like freedom of speech, the individual's free exercise of religion is not absolute. The Court has ruled that in some instances religious expression may be limited on behalf of the public good.

In Reynolds v. United States (1879), for example, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law against the practice of polygamyhaving multiple spousesin federal territories. The Court ruled that the antipolygamy law did not violate the right to free exercise of religion of a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), who claimed it was his religious obligation to have more than one wife. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite argued that the federal law prohibiting polygamy, even when practiced for religious reasons, was necessary for the good of the community. He wrote, Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government [could] not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?

In order to restrict an individual's free exercise of religion, the government must demonstrate a compelling public interest. In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Court ruled that a state could not refuse unemployment benefits to a worker who would not make herself available for employment on Saturday because this was her special day of worship (she was a Seventh-Day Adventist). An entitlement such as state unemployment benefits cannot be denied to someone because of her religious practices.

By contrast, in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), the Court ruled against state employees who were denied unemployment benefits after being dismissed from their jobs for religion-related reasons. The employees, who were Native Americans, practiced a religion with rituals involving the smoking of peyote, an illegal substance under state law. Because they were dismissed for violating a state law, the Court upheld the denial of unemployment compensation. Writing for the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability

In 1993, however, the Court struck down a city ordinance that banned ritual animal sacrifice by a religious group. The Court held in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) that the ordinance violated the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause because it suppressed, without a compelling argument on behalf of the public good, a religious ceremony fundamental to members of a church.

Deciding when the free exercise of religion needs protection, however, is not always a straightforward task. When the city of Boerne, Texas, refused a Roman Catholic church's request to build a larger sanctuary, the Supreme Court ruled for the city. In City of Boerne, Texas v. Flores (1997), speaking for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law passed in 1993 that limited the power of federal, state, and local governments to enforce laws that substantially burden the free exercise of religion. Kennedy emphasized that the power to determine violations of the Constitution is reserved for government's judicial branch.

Continuing controversies

The fiercest arguments today about religion-related constitutional rights pertain to the establishment clause, not the free exercise clause. The absolutists and the nonprefer-entialists strongly disagree about such issues as state-sponsored prayer in schools and neutral or nonpreferential support for religious practices in public places or with public funds. Public opinion polls have revealed more than 70 percent of Americans to be against the absolutist, or strict separation, position.

Recent Court decisions indicate a movement toward more accommodation and less separation of religion from the state. In Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette (1995), the Court ruled that a private group may put religious symbols on government property if there is no appearance of government support for the religious message. And the Court decided in 1995 that a state university cannot discriminate against a student religious publication by denying it financial support on equal terms with other student publications (Rosenberg v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia).

The Supreme Court's movement toward accommodation between government and religion continued in Agostini v. Felton (1997). This decision, which overturned Aguilar v. Felton (1985), held that government funds can be used to provide remedial education for disadvantaged students in private religious schools. As long as the public funds aid students directly and do not promote religion or excessively entangle government with a religious institution, then the government-funded program is constitutional.

In Mitchell v. Helms (2000) the Court upheld a federal program that provided computer equipment and software and other media materials to religiously affiliated schools. In a plurality opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, and Kennedy, held that federal programs in agreement with the principles of neutrality and private choice are not in violation of the 1st Amendment's establishment clause. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer concurred that the federal program at issue was constitutional, but they did not agree with Thomas's neutrality principle. The Supreme Court clearly has moved strikingly toward an accommodationist position in church-state relationships. How far this accommodation may go, however, is the subject of a lively debate.

See also Abington School District v. Schempp; City of Boerne, Texas v. Flores; Engel v. Vitale; Establishment clause; Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township; Free exercise clause; Lemon Test; Lemon v. Kurtzman; Wallace v. Jaffree; West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette; Zorach v. Clauson

Sources
Robert S. Alley, ed., The Constitution & Religion: Leading Supreme Court Cases on Church and State (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1999).
Robert S. Alley, ed., James Madison on Religious Liberty (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1985).
Robert S. Alley, ed., The Supreme Court on Church and State (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
Thomas J. Curry, The First Freedoms: Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).
Edwin S. Gaustad, Church and State in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
Leonard W. Levy, The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment (New York: Macmillan, 1986).
William Lee Miller, The First Liberty: Religion and the American Republic (New York: Paragon House, 1985).
Melvin I. Urofsky, The Religion Clauses, in By and for the People: Constitutional Rights in American History, edited by Kermit L. Hall (Arlington Heights, III.: Harlan Davidson, 1991)"


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

momeee said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > Just saw a news this morning (ABC's local channel, so not to be accused of only watching Fox) gas prices are 47 cents higher than last month. Just one month after Obama started his 2nd term. That is over a dollar higher in just 4 years. For someone that must drive so much, that is financially crushing.
> ...


I LIED, by mistake, gas prices are up 2 dollars since Obama took office. Guess I needed more coffee. Sorry


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Did any one find it hilarious that Michelle had to give the best picture award to a movie that RESCUED Americans and not allowed them to die so that the president could take a nap?

And think of the snub, his assassination of Osama (aka political ad) was not even in the loop.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

off2knit said:


> Just saw a news this morning (ABC's local channel, so not to be accused of only watching Fox) gas prices are 47 cents higher than last month. Just one month after Obama started his 2nd term. That is over a dollar higher in just 4 years. For someone that must drive so much, that is financially crushing.
> I LIED, by mistake, gas prices are up 2 dollars since Obama took office. Guess I needed more coffee. Sorry


Here in California we're being told gas prices have gone up due to changing over to gas formulated for summer use. Sounds like a song and dance to me.


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Sometimes you wonder about democracy but there's nothing better at this time out there. For starters we could push for term limits for Congress. It was never meant to provide lifetime employment. After several terms they have a real disconnect with their constituency as they become a part of the Insiders of the Beltway.


susanmos2000 said:


> Our current two-party system has some fundamental flaws...I'm guessing the GOP will win the next Presidential election, and whoever wins will of course spend most his (or perhaps her) time dismantling Obama's programs. And when the Democrats take over four or eight years later they'll do exactly the same thing. It's like Sisyphus pushing the rock uphill only to have it tumble back down every time.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

I don't think saying a prayer is imposing ones religion.A prayer can be done without anyone else knowing it is happening. Can it not?


pardoquilts said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Please give supporting evidence!


rocky1991 said:


> off2knit said:
> 
> 
> > pardoquilts said:
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

RUKnitting said:


> Sometimes you wonder about democracy but there's nothing better at this time out there. For starters we could push for term limits for Congress. It was never meant to provide lifetime employment. After several terms they have a real disconnect with their constituency as they become a part of the Insiders of the Beltway.
> 
> 
> susanmos2000 said:
> ...


True, but there are other democratic forms of government besides the two-party/judicial/legislative/executive system we have here. Lots (most?) of the countries in Europe have parliaments, which as I understand it sort of combine the executive and the legislative branch into one. I'd imagine such a setup is away of avoiding the absolute gridlock we're facing now, where the executive branch is controlled by one party and the legislative branch largely by another.


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

My post focused on the DOE as it was in reply to Pardo. You may want to go to the entire report which can be found by googling GAO for information on other departments. This report is what was presented to the House. It does not represent duplication of forms, gov vetting to determine the value of programs or if they met their objectives, etc.. That is a whole other bag of worms.


SeattleSoul said:


> Ruknitting, thank you for the very informative post about Gene L Dodara, Comptroller General of the US 2012 annual report. I 've copied it so I can read it at leisure and take more time to think about it.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

Personally, I love the gridlock. I have my parachute and ready for March 1st. Oh hopefully the big pillow for my butt will arrive by then, so that I can have a soft landing. Talk about a CYA


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

I was referring to the misuse of funds in govt specifically the DOE as you initiated this concern.


pardoquilts said:


> RUKnitting said:
> 
> 
> > The past is history. We live in the present and if possible need to correct the failures of the past and focus on the future of our country. This report was researched and written by our government experts who I would hope know the "ins and outs of things". Lets hope that someone in the government knows what they are doing. Your husband being in a position of authority what did he do to remedy this misuse of funds and failure to return money from sales in compliance with the miscellaneous receipts statute? What makes you think he had any authority to do anything about whatever you are talking about? He is the Operations Manager for one part of a National User Research Facility. He does keep very close watch on what is spent in his lab.
> ...


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

I certainly don't want to go the way of Europe. I have traveled to at least 3/4 of the European countries and can tell you most are not happy with their government, but like us don't have answers. And think for a moment how Rome destroyed itself from within.


susanmos2000 said:


> RUKnitting said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes you wonder about democracy but there's nothing better at this time out there. For starters we could push for term limits for Congress. It was never meant to provide lifetime employment. After several terms they have a real disconnect with their constituency as they become a part of the Insiders of the Beltway.
> ...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

RUKnitting said:


> The past is history. We live in the present and if possible need to correct the failures of the past and focus on the future of our country.


I only quoted small part of one of your posts. Hope you don't mind. I couldn't help remembering that saying about how those who do not know history will be condemned to repeat it. I don't advocate living in the past or concentrating on it obsessively, but a good grounding in history is a valuable tool. I also don't advocate concentrating on any one view of the past. I go for the well-rounded approach which gives me the pleasure if synthesizing all I've read into something I believe I can rely on. I suspect we agree.


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

SeattleSoul said:


> RUKnitting said:
> 
> 
> > The past is history. We live in the present and if possible need to correct the failures of the past and focus on the future of our country.
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Zero Dark Thirty was, in fact, nominated for Best Picture.


off2knit said:


> Did any one find it hilarious that Michelle had to give the best picture award to a movie that RESCUED Americans and not allowed them to die so that the president could take a nap?
> 
> And think of the snub, his assassination of Osama (aka political ad) was not even in the loop.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

RUKnitting said:


> I don't think saying a prayer is imposing ones religion.A prayer can be done without anyone else knowing it is happening. Can it not? I have no problem with a private prayer. I have a problem with requiring others to participate in that activity.
> 
> 
> pardoquilts said:
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> bonbf3 said:
> 
> 
> > theyarnlady said:
> ...


Just luck on my part, Yarnie!


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> alcameron said:
> 
> 
> > off2knit said:
> ...


Maybe those cities have taxed themselves into trouble, sort of like California.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> Zero Dark Thirty was, in fact, nominated for Best Picture.
> 
> 
> off2knit said:
> ...


So I stand corrected, but the Obama movie did not win and Michelle had to give the award about people who really were true American Heroes, sent by a president that cared for citizens of our beloved country. Even if he failed, he at least tried to the best of his ability.

I will still also stand by my assertion that Michelle's appearance on the Academy Awards was still tacky, self serving, and totally inappropriate. At least she did not wear her bathing suit dress.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > > If anyone knew what the Constituion meant, it was the Founding Fathers.
> ...


susanmos2000,
Do you actually know anyone who would love to see slavery brought back?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > susanmos2000 said:
> ...


No, and neither is Obama, in spite of what Chris Rock thinks.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > susanmos2000 said:
> ...


I guess I should make my sentence similar to yours.
They were not gods, and neither is the (mixed race) man who is president today.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

off2knit said:


> Personally, I love the gridlock. I have my parachute and ready for March 1st. Oh hopefully the big pillow for my butt will arrive by then, so that I can have a soft landing. Talk about a CYA


Good idea chute must get one thinking in color Red. I think I will just duck tape pillow to and around the bottom myself do want a soft landing, don't ya know. :thumbup:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


Oh you :thumbup: :thumbup: :lol: :lol:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

I think it is high time for another party to step up.

How about the Womens reform men in goverment party. Name sounds good, and all we need is to show who really can do the job the right way.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > joeysomma said:
> ...


Oh please don't maline my poor Chris Rocker off and mouth to big and mouth in gear before brain has a ""right"" thought.
He has been having a time of it, poor thing. :evil:


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

sounds real good to me.


theyarnlady said:


> I think it is high time for another party to step up.
> 
> How about the Womens reform men in goverment party. Name sounds good, and all we need is to show who really can do the job the right way.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

I was a teacher and had mostly black children in my first grade class the year obama was first elected. I didn't agree with his policies, but I was so happy for my students. Now they could truly believe that all doors were open to them. 

But - I have been very disappointed in his presidency. He has divided the country terribly. He has made racist remarks like "the police are stupid." He has criticized our country overseas, calling us derisive and divisive. He made fun of us, saying it was embarrassing that we couldn't speak foreign languages, yet I've never heard that he does. He has taken expensive vacations when the economy was going bust and people couldn't get work. He pushed through a national health care plan, even though most of the American people were against it - AND before it had been thoroughly read and examined. He promised that people would be able to keep their insurance, without adding "if they can afford it!" Prices have gone up, and companies have withdrawn insurance. He said there were no "death panels," and yet there are. He has taken over the banks and the auto industry. His wife has somehow, with no official power, decided what children will eat for lunch at school and how much, resulting in children throwing away food and going hungry. He was asleep at the wheel during the Benghazi murders, had his "people" lie to the public about the cause, and continues to refuse to answer questions himself about his involvement or lack thereof. He has used criticized waterboarding and substituted killing with drones. He has not answered the question that asks if an American citizen is targeted overseas, will he/she have an opportunity to surrender before being killed by a drone? He has not answered the question asking can drones be used against American citizens on American soil. Has not answered it! He has ignored the nuclear threats of North Korea and Iran. He has snubbed Israel.

I had an open mind when he took office. I was sorely disappointed. When he won a second term, I decided to look with new eyes, and I praised his speech in Connecticut. And there my admiration ends because of the many things I mentioned above.

He has an elitist attitude and loves being "top dog." As far as understanding me, he hasn't a clue about this pro-life, anti-death penalty senior citizen, and I don't believe he has any interest in us.

I honestly don't know how people can close their eyes to these facts. I know it's hard to do because I liked Richard Nixon. The day came when I finally had to acknowledge to myself that he had done wrong. It wasn't easy. I just hope that intellectual honesty will cause thinking people to take a close, hard look at some of Obama's policies that really do "fundamentally change" America.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

momeee said:


> sounds real good to me.
> 
> 
> theyarnlady said:
> ...


The most likely thing to happen is that the Tea Party would break away from the rest of the republicans and nominate their own candidate in 2016. Wouldn't that be nice?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

off2knit said:


> pardoquilts said:
> 
> 
> > Zero Dark Thirty was, in fact, nominated for Best Picture.
> ...


It was tacky, but only done to let supporters in Hollywood know how much they love them, more than I can say about the caring for 4 men in Bengazie ( oh heck can't spell worth a dime today)


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

I agree. Thank you for taking the time to state this. We must never let Americans forget... It is a sad state of affairs for our beloved America, isn't it?



bonbf3 said:


> I was a teacher and had mostly black children in my first grade class the year obama was first elected. I didn't agree with his policies, but I was so happy for my students. Now they could truly believe that all doors were open to them.
> 
> But - I have been very disappointed in his presidency. He has divided the country terribly. He has made racist remarks like "the police are stupid." He has criticized our country overseas, calling us derisive and divisive. He made fun of us, saying it was embarrassing that we couldn't speak foreign languages, yet I've never heard that he does. He has taken expensive vacations when the economy was going bust and people couldn't get work. He pushed through a national health care plan, even though most of the American people were against it - AND before it had been thoroughly read and examined. He promised that people would be able to keep their insurance, without adding "if they can afford it!" Prices have gone up, and companies have withdrawn insurance. He has taken over the banks and the auto industry. His wife has somehow, with no official power, decided what children will eat for lunch and how much, resulting in children throwing away food and going hungry. He was asleep at the wheel during the Benghazi murders, had his "people" lie to the public about the cause, and continues to refuse to answer questions himself about his involvement or lack thereof. He has used criticized waterboarding and substituted killing with drones. He has not answered the question that asks if an American citizen is targeted overseas, will he/she have an opportunity to surrender before being killed by a drone? He has not answered the question asking can drones be used against American citizens on American soil. Has not answered it!
> 
> ...


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

alcameron said:


> momeee said:
> 
> 
> > sounds real good to me.
> ...


It would be wonderful, but unfortunately the under informed would be scared by the libs, like yourself, with made up stories about endless end of the world scenarios. But then again, when the world doesn't end on March 2nd maybe the under informed may start to listen and learn the truth.


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Also the film I was routing for Life of Pi.


pardoquilts said:


> Zero Dark Thirty was, in fact, nominated for Best Picture.
> 
> 
> off2knit said:
> ...


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> thumper5316 said:
> 
> 
> > alcameron said:
> ...


Admitting the truth is the first step towards healing.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

Or share whatever it is you're smokin'.



RUKnitting said:


> Please give supporting evidence!
> 
> 
> rocky1991 said:
> ...


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

From your lips to God's ears Thumper


But then again, I doubt that will happen. Obama once again told Republicans to compromise again. Where has he done any compromising?

Obama wanted this plan, he and Harry Reid came up with the idea, proposed it, promoted it, and then signed it into law.

Come on Obama, it is time to man up. Take your pen, and make the cuts line by line, so we all will know what you want cut


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

You're a TEN.


bonbf3 said:


> I was a teacher and had mostly black children in my first grade class the year obama was first elected. I didn't agree with his policies, but I was so happy for my students. Now they could truly believe that all doors were open to them.
> 
> But - I have been very disappointed in his presidency. He has divided the country terribly. He has made racist remarks like "the police are stupid." He has criticized our country overseas, calling us derisive and divisive. He made fun of us, saying it was embarrassing that we couldn't speak foreign languages, yet I've never heard that he does. He has taken expensive vacations when the economy was going bust and people couldn't get work. He pushed through a national health care plan, even though most of the American people were against it - AND before it had been thoroughly read and examined. He promised that people would be able to keep their insurance, without adding "if they can afford it!" Prices have gone up, and companies have withdrawn insurance. He said there were no "death panels," and yet there are. He has taken over the banks and the auto industry. His wife has somehow, with no official power, decided what children will eat for lunch at school and how much, resulting in children throwing away food and going hungry. He was asleep at the wheel during the Benghazi murders, had his "people" lie to the public about the cause, and continues to refuse to answer questions himself about his involvement or lack thereof. He has used criticized waterboarding and substituted killing with drones. He has not answered the question that asks if an American citizen is targeted overseas, will he/she have an opportunity to surrender before being killed by a drone? He has not answered the question asking can drones be used against American citizens on American soil. Has not answered it! He has ignored the nuclear threats of North Korea and Iran. He has snubbed Israel.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## sjrNC (Jul 30, 2012)

some one wrote about this, I tried to find who, but didn't

"Payroll taxes did not go up,, they went down because of Obama and back to original rates because of reps."

The extension of payroll taxes were never on the table when they were about to expire

here is an article from Forbes about it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2013/01/14/dear-america-your-higher-payroll-taxes-are-not-the-result-of-a-tax-increase/

Leading up to the Presidential election, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney promised to further extend the payroll tax cut. In fact, if one were to dig deep into each mans tax proposals, one would see that both Obama and Romney intended to allow the tax cut to expire. And effective January 1, 2013, it did.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

sjrNC said:


> some one wrote about this, I tried to fine who, but didn't
> 
> Payroll taxes did not go up,, they went down because of Obama and back to original rates because of reps.
> 
> ...


I thought he promised to not raise taxes on the middle class. By allowing the Bush tax rate cut to expire, taxes went up. What about taxes caused by Obamacare (medical equipment such as wheelchairs, oxygen tanks, CPAP machines, hip replacement parts..............) that is a new one too.

He lied about not raising taxes. He lied about cutting the deficit in half (February 2009). He lied about making budget cuts, it was just smoke and mirrors. He has not had a budget in over 4 years. He has lied about Benghazi. He told his former spokesman to lie about the drone program. He takes naps when Americans are being murdered, tortured, violated.....


----------



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

I hope they have learned a lesson and realize this is not a person with whom you do business. LIES. LIES. LIES. He's not going to do it. Check his record in the Congress. Absent, absent, abstain, abstain, abstain, absent, and so it went on for all the time he was in Congress. If it wasn't considered by some to be racist, I'd say he was LAZY. And incompetent.


off2knit said:


> From your lips to God's ears Thumper
> 
> But then again, I doubt that will happen. Obama once again told Republicans to compromise again. Where has he done any compromising?
> 
> ...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

off2knit said:


> From your lips to God's ears Thumper
> 
> But then again, I doubt that will happen. Obama once again told Republicans to compromise again. Where has he done any compromising?
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Mz Molly said:


> DOES ANYONE HERE REMEMBER WHAT THE ORIGINAL TOPIC WAS?
> 
> IT SEEMS TO ME, JUST MY OPINION, Some have gotten WAAAAYYYY of track. 94 pages of non stop what????????
> 
> Are you people for real????????


Yep, I'm breathing but don't know for how long! This is Chit Chat and "Any" subject is open to discussion! Don't open it if you don't want to read what is being discussed.

Administration of KP considers all caps as Cursing! You may hear from them about using all caps.

Have a great evening!


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

off2knit said:


> sjrNC said:
> 
> 
> > some one wrote about this, I tried to fine who, but didn't
> ...


He also lied about Romey, but then why would he want to tell the truth. No one would have voted for him, he had done nothing of worth, and he still has done nothing of worth. Except thinking he is loved by all and for that I blame the news media, with their rose colored glasses on.


----------



## off2knit (Sep 12, 2012)

<whispering> Yarny are rose colored glasses a code phrase?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > > If anyone knew what the Constituion meant, it was the Founding Fathers.
> ...


Yes, does anyone remember history where the black slaves in Africa were traded to ship owners for goods is "How" the blacks were brought here in the first place!


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Just one question for Pardo, do you have any American poor working with their products. your free trade company?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

off2knit said:


> <whispering> Yarny are rose colored glasses a code phrase?


Shhhhhhhh! Yes, those are "Code" phrases. Don't give away secrets pleeeese!


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

It is FAIR TRADE and we do carry products made by Americans, though there are not many fair trade organizations in the U.S. My husband and I do contribute to organizations in the U.S. which help poor people. However, it is becoming a smaller and smaller world every day, and the level of poverty, the mistreatment of women in some parts of the world, and a number of other factors make us interested in helping people everywhere. America is NOT the only country in the world, and I feel a need to help people where I can. Do you have a problem with that?


theyarnlady said:


> Just one question for Pardo, do you have any American poor working with their products. your free trade company?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > susanmos2000 said:
> ...


Unfortunately, yes. One of the main justifications for slavery (and the Jim Crow laws that followed) was that African-Americans were dishonest, shifty, and wouldn't work unless they were forced to do so. After reading post after post that level those same charges at Mr. and Mrs. Obama I'm forced to conclude that at least some site members would be delighted to see the Obama family go up on the auction block.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> He also lied about Romey, but then why would he want to tell the truth. No one would have voted for him, he had done nothing of worth, and he still has done nothing of worth. Except thinking he is loved by all and for that I blame the news media, with their rose colored glasses on.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## admin (Jan 12, 2011)

This is an automated notice.

This topic was split up because it reached high page count.
Please feel free to continue the conversation in the new topic that was automatically created here:

http://www.knittingparadise.com/t-156244-1.html

Sorry for any inconvenience.


----------

