Military Brides

Thought Provoking Tuesday 9/13

Republican debate last night brought up a lot of issues, most specifically about job creation, social programs, and the role of government.

Anyone want to weigh in here?  Whether or not you saw the debates, what are your opinions on these topics?  What do you think are good or bad ideas?

image

Anniversary

«1

Re: Thought Provoking Tuesday 9/13

  • calindicalindi member
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Comment
    edited December 2011
    I think a lot of the things that were stated during the debate were meant to cause a strong emotional response in their target audience, rather than going for technical accuracy.  Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme was a bit extreme, but I get the point and don't entirely disagree with it.  The problem is that rather than invest the money so that there's a return on the investment, they simply add it to the budget and spend it at will with no expectation of getting the money back in any form except future taxes.  That's not sustainable, if only because of the baby boomer generation being the next one to hit Social Security and will be receiving far more in benefits than our generation and the one directly above us will be contributing, especially if unemployment remains as high as it is.  I'm not sure how to fix it, but I feel like having a financial expert like Warren Buffet in a position as advisor on the budget (perhaps, say, head of the fed?) would be hugely beneficial. 

    As far as Michele Bachmann, she just pisses me off every time she opens her mouth.  What was that about the government forcing young girls to get the Guardasil shot?  That wasn't in question, lady.  What they were talking about is mandating that insurance covers the shot - it's still your choice to give it or not.  But seriously, I do think it's irresponsible for people to not give their children vaccines. 

    This is pretty much how I view the argument about not vaccinating children (warning: lots of cursing):  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

    image

    Anniversary

  • Elle1036Elle1036 member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited December 2011
    I didn't watch it.  I'm a little ashamed of myself, but it's FI's fault.  I asked if he wanted to watch and he said "Uhhhh, no." so that was that.

    It's probably for the best anyway.  It would have put me in a bad mood right before bedtime, and I've been having trouble sleeping as it is.
  • edited December 2011
    I didn't watch it either.. The Republican debates scare me and just plain stress me out. I can't handle more stress right now. -_- I already know that I hate all of their candidates so it doesn't matter what any of them have to say, I will not be voting that way.
  • calindicalindi member
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Comment
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_thought-provoking-tuesday-913?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:13Discussion:b2ce0d78-1a99-4bfd-b2f2-11577bdfccd1Post:44956862-e9e4-4749-9bf9-eabfd421fe95">Re: Thought Provoking Tuesday 9/13</a>:
    [QUOTE]I didn't watch it either.. The Republican debates scare me and just plain stress me out. I can't handle more stress right now. -_- I already know that I hate all of their candidates so it doesn't matter what any of them have to say, I will not be voting that way.
    Posted by firsttimersluck[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, I'm not voting that way, either.  I just like to keep abreast of political goings-on, and to see what the Republicans are putting forward for next year.  Not impressed, but I didn't figure I would be.  What scares me is the support some of these people are getting.  It honestly scares me.

    image

    Anniversary

  • edited December 2011
    I usually would watch it. I keep up on it all.. and I think Bachmann is scary because she is SMART and BSC... Palin is just BSC.. Bachmann is a completely other breed O.o Ron Paul will never ever be president. It's just the way it is. Sorry repubs' He's not liked enough overall. ugh.. too many to even mention..  blah.
    yeah I will probably go ahead and read it all today.. I just have been stressed with wedding stuff since we're less than two weeks out that I don't need random irrelevant stress to add to it :P
  • edited December 2011
    I have decided I'm voting for Rick Parry :P heheehehe
  • edited December 2011
    I really should of watched it, but I was out riding until about 930 and passed out after. I'm normally pretty good about watching the debates. So I honestly can't say that I agree/disagree with them or even who I like at this point in time. I do know that there needs to be some serious budgeting going on, and they really need to make cuts. Not cuts from 'big things' - like threatening the military retirement and such - but cuts where it is neccessary and programs that can be held off on until our economy and our deficit is better. Does anyone have the link to the topics and the answers from the canidates last night??
    Lilypie Premature Baby tickers
  • calindicalindi member
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Comment
    edited December 2011
    I can't find a comprehensive transcript, but here's some of it:

    http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/September/13/transcript-gop-debate-health-care-issues.aspx

    CNN has pretty good coverage, and I'm sure Fox will have its own spin on things.

    I have a hard time finding where to cut that amount of money, and to be honest I don't think cutting unemployment and social services at a time where many Americans are out of work is at all beneficial to our recovery.  I think it's more of a building-blocks problem - people don't see the need to cut the budget on small things, like government contractors who rake in way more than government employees per head to do the same job, so all those little costs add up.  I don't see how we can reasonably cut on the military or the social programs right now - we have a war and lots of unemployed people.

    I honestly think trying to keep manufacturing and farming jobs in the US is the wrong way to go.  It counteracts general macro-economic theory.  Subsidies paid for corn farming, for example, is a cost we could easily cut.  But then the corn farmers would be out of their artificially created jobs.  We'd be much better off in the long run if we accepted that we can no longer competitively produce the manufactured goods and agriculture products so we should not artificially support those positions.  Supply and demand - people will start going for where there is money, so we'd end up with more Americans going for jobs where we have a competitive edge - usually higher-educated positions where innovation is required.  Sure, there will always be store owners, clerks, mechanics, laborers, and other positions that don't require higher education.  But by cutting back on subsidized loans for students, we're preventing Americans from getting the experience to truly succeed.

    image

    Anniversary

  • calindicalindi member
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Comment
    edited December 2011
    Here's an article on Obama's jobs bill, which was so highly criticized last night:

    http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/09/the-morning-briefing-white-house-points-to-zandi/

    image

    Anniversary

  • calindicalindi member
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Comment
    edited December 2011
    Here's an excerpt about the Guardasil shot:

    BACHMANN: I'm a mom. And I'm a mom of three children. And to have innocent little 12-year-old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just flat out wrong. That should never be done. It's a violation of a liberty interest.


    We already mandate parents to have their children vaccinated for a number of things in order to go to public school - people are up in arms about Guardasil simply because it protects against a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cancer.  But ultimately, it can cause cancer.  If someone came up with a shot that, administred by age 16, would prevent breast cancer, you better believe parents would give it to their children.  But simply because this cancer isn't caused by genetics or intangible causes, but rather sexual contact, people are up in arms that it will encourage their children or 'give them permission' to engage in sex.  Ugh!  Prudes!

    image

    Anniversary

  • edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_thought-provoking-tuesday-913?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:13Discussion:b2ce0d78-1a99-4bfd-b2f2-11577bdfccd1Post:9a1dfe3d-ced2-460b-9163-2b8e8fe2b182">Re: Thought Provoking Tuesday 9/13</a>:
    [QUOTE]Here's an excerpt about the Guardasil shot: BACHMANN: I'm a mom. And I'm a mom of three children. And to have innocent little 12-year-old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just flat out wrong. That should never be done. It's a violation of a liberty interest. We already mandate parents to have their children vaccinated for a number of things in order to go to public school - people are up in arms about Guardasil simply because it protects against a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cancer.  But ultimately, it can cause cancer.  If someone came up with a shot that, administred by age 16, would prevent breast cancer, you better believe parents would give it to their children.  But simply because this cancer isn't caused by genetics or intangible causes, but rather sexual contact, people are up in arms that it will encourage their children or 'give them permission' to engage in sex.  Ugh!  Prudes!
    Posted by calindi[/QUOTE]

    Personally, I will never get that shot (or series of shots) because of the side effects. I know a girl who got the shots and was perfectly healthy beforehand. A little bit after getting the first shot, she started having seizures. She was told she had to complete the series of shots and as she got the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, the seizures became worse and more frequent. She even had one at school and passed out in the bathroom. Now, thankfully she's fine now. But still...there is no history of seizures in her family or anything. The only thing "different" in her life was the shot.

    Also, doesn't it only prevent a few strands of HPV? Like 4 of some outragoues number. I understand the idea behind it, but how does preventing 4 of say, 120 help the situation at all? Barely. So what's even the point. Especially if it's going to cause you medical harm or even kill you. Because there were girls who did die from it.
    image
    the reason it hurts so much to separate is because our souls are connected. ~nicholas sparks<3</center>
  • calindicalindi member
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Comment
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_thought-provoking-tuesday-913?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:13Discussion:b2ce0d78-1a99-4bfd-b2f2-11577bdfccd1Post:9af94928-6c56-4e94-ac9e-771104066fad">Re: Thought Provoking Tuesday 9/13</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thought Provoking Tuesday 9/13 : Personally, I will never get that shot (or series of shots) because of the side effects. I know a girl who got the shots and was perfectly healthy beforehand. A little bit after getting the first shot, she started having seizures. She was told she had to complete the series of shots and as she got the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, the seizures became worse and more frequent. She even had one at school and passed out in the bathroom. Now, thankfully she's fine now. But still...there is no history of seizures in her family or anything. The only thing "different" in her life was the shot. Also, doesn't it only prevent a few strands of HPV? Like 4 of some outragoues number. I understand the idea behind it, but how does preventing 4 of say, 120 help the situation at all? Barely. So what's even the point. Especially if it's going to cause you medical harm or even kill you. Because there were girls who did die from it.
    Posted by staybeautiful1717[/QUOTE]


    It prevents the 3 kinds of HPV that cause 80% of cervical cancers, and they also are the most quickly progressing forms.  So with that vaccine, 80% of cervical cancers would be eliminated.  That's significant.  80% of sexually active women who have more than one partner will get some form of HPV at some point in their life, whether or not they're ever diagnosed or get symptoms.  I myself have been diagnosed with HPV, even after getting the shot.  It sucks.  They biopsy parts of you that you don't ever want to have biopsied.  If it doesn't go away on its own or if the biopsies indicate a higher risk form of HPV, they go in and slice the infected skin out.  That causes infertility risks and if you do get pregnant, much higher risks of early labor or spontaneous abortion of the fetus.  Sometimes they scrape the entire cervix, which raises infertility risks tremendously, and sometimes it's so bad they have to do a hysterectomy.  I'm lucky so far, but once you have it, it can come back.  I have one of the 20% of types that isn't covered by the vaccine.  I'm still VERY grateful I got that vaccine.

    I get being able to opt out, but I fail to see how it's different from any other vaccine - MMR, tetnis, etc.  Yes, there are always a small percentage of the population who react poorly to a vaccine, but they don't cause autism and the risks are ridiculously small compared to not having the vaccine.

    image

    Anniversary

  • divinemsbeedivinemsbee member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment
    edited December 2011
    I just can't deal with the whole "I got mine so everyone else can suck it" mentality that I feel defines the Tea Party. Cannot deal with it. I just can't imagine the amount of heartlessness involved in coming to that conclusion. I didn't watch it, because I would have given myself a concussion from repeatedly slamming my head into the coffee table. I did see video clips, though. The "What do you think should happen to a 30-year-old man who has a horrible accident but doesn't have insurance?" question basically followed by a "I don't care." really got to me. A lot of people can't afford health insurance, it's not that they think they'll never get sick or hurt, it's that it's expensive and when it comes to my children and I can eat or we can have health insurance, generally people pick the food.

    And Michele Bachmann. Just no. That is a bucket full of complete crazy. She wants to be powerful in politics and I would bet would be willing to sell her own mother and children to get there, nevermind the well-being of our country.

    (If I knew how to upload a gif, there would be some Peggy from Mad Men headdesk action here)
    image
  • divinemsbeedivinemsbee member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment
    edited December 2011
    My grandmother (who also think the Tea Party is Wingnuts McWhacko) says they should bring back the WPA and the CCC in terms of jobs. I can't say it's the worst idea I've heard.
    image
  • edited December 2011
    Many people can call me mean - but the way I see it is this - I am already paying into services I will never be able to use - Social Security will not be available by the time I need it, it's been proven for years. I pay my taxes, I do not think we should offer any more health insurance - there is free health care clinics and so forth - If I can make sure that I have money out of my barely there income - $1200 a month to pay $200 in insurance a month on top of contributing towards our mortgage, bills, groceries, gas, car payment - then others can do it too. I make wayyy less than others my age. I just don't think it's far to make the poor poorer by paying for so and so's health insurance.
    Futhermore - I think the government programs such as unemployment and welfare, and foodstamps and any goverment assistance programs needs to be made sure that 1. it is going to american citizens and 2. it is going to people who truly need it not some crackhead or lazy person collecting unemployment just because they don't want to get a job. There are those who use it properly, to get by till they find another job, and those who abuse it - cutting out the abusers might really find money.

    They really need to sit down and see where each and every dollar is going and start small - do you need the fancy pens - no use BIC type thing and go from there. Our country started as nothing and they can make some cuts to fix whats been ruined.
    Lilypie Premature Baby tickers
  • divinemsbeedivinemsbee member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment
    edited December 2011
    But you could cut all unemployment and the whole Dept. of Education and have enough money to run the country for...wait for it...FOUR WHOLE DAYS! I don't think we should continue taxing the middle class out of existence to fund all government programs, but I do think if Warren Buffett (the man God borrows money from) is saying "Hey, tax me more to make other people's lives easier" then maybe he has a point. I think it's an easy scare tactic to say that our tax money is going to those "drug addicts" and "damn dirty foreigners" and "welfare queens" but that simply isn't the case for most of the money. Many undocumented workers do actually pay into Social Security through their employers, it's the employers that should be punished, but, oh wait, they give lots of money. If you take away WIC and Head Start, you're not punishing the drug addicts, you're punishing their children, who did nothing wrong except be born.

    The issue is that everyone sees raising taxes as so horrible. I'm not going to cry is the richest 2% of Americans, who have used the great opportunities of America to get that way have to pay a little more. But politicians have convinced people that such an increase will affect everyone negatively, and that's just not true. You can cut all the pens you want, but when cutting entire government departments won't really help, then that's kind of false logic. There has to be more money brought into the system. Period. We need to fix the tax loopholes that allow companies to keep their earnings overseas in Ireland or Sweden and that allow G.E. to have to $0 tax bill.
    image
  • calindicalindi member
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Comment
    edited December 2011
    I totally support drug testing for welfare programs.  We don't need to be buying drugs.  And I don't know how the food stamps program works, but I know that I saw a woman yesterday who was yapping on an iPhone, which I know costs a lot monthly, pay her bill with her EBS card to buy wine, beer, cigarettes, and a whole bunch of junk food (think football appetizers, not stuff you'd feed someone for a meal) and then get cash back.  Uh, wah?  This isn't the first time I've seen someone get cash back with an EBS card.  Again, I don't know how it works, but that seems wrong to me.  That money is supposed to be used to feed people.

    I do totally agree with Warren Buffet, and applaud his gumption in coming out and saying it.  While a 2% tax increase for him means millions more dollars than most of us would have to pay for the same increase, that difference for him does not affect his day-to-day life.  People who are in the top 2% of America, even the top 5%, do not spend the majority of their income on cost of living expenses.  A 2% increase means nothing in terms of quality of life for these people, while the same 2% could mean the difference for some families living paycheck-to-paycheck.  I sure as heck don't want to pay an extra 2% right now - though 2% for me would be in the hundreds, not the millions, of dollars annually.  And Warren Buffet's 2% can go a lot further in helping our country balance its budget than my 2%.

    image

    Anniversary

  • edited December 2011
    I agree - I seriously think there needs to be some serious cutting in the spending, a stop to the spending - like passing bills that need trillions of dollars - and a tax increase, heck even raising the tax by 1% would do something. And honestly - if they were to lower the buisness tax, or help buisnesses out such as GE - that is like a million more tax paying workers paying into our system. They tax the crap out of them, and they shouldn't. It'd create more jobs which would create more paychecks for americans and that would give them more money.
    Lilypie Premature Baby tickers
  • edited December 2011
    hahaha divinem... I totally loled with your four whole days comment.
  • divinemsbeedivinemsbee member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_thought-provoking-tuesday-913?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:b2ce0d78-1a99-4bfd-b2f2-11577bdfccd1Post:6c0318e1-a42e-4702-bdb3-3dc72cdc60e8">Re: Thought Provoking Tuesday 9/13</a>:
    [QUOTE]I agree - I seriously think there needs to be some serious cutting in the spending, a stop to the spending - like passing bills that need trillions of dollars - and a tax increase, heck even raising the tax by 1% would do something. And honestly - if they were to lower the buisness tax, or<strong> help buisnesses out such as GE</strong> - that is like a million more tax paying workers paying into our system.<strong> They tax the crap out of them</strong>, and they shouldn't. It'd create more jobs which would create more paychecks for americans and that would give them more money.
    Posted by amh04[/QUOTE]

    G.E. paid $0 in federal business income tax this year. Z-E-R-O. I'm sorry I can't feel sorry for the poor giant corporation. What you're talking about is supply-side (also known as "trickle-down" or more appropriately "voo-doo") economics. It states that if we give the big-business a break, then of course they will put that money back into the market and create jobs. This has been shown time and time again not to work. The businesses jobs are to make money, so they are going to do what they need to do to make it.  I might, might make exception for very small business, because they might create jobs instead of hiring overseas where labor is cheaper. Because that's what businesses do when they want to make money, they cuts labor costs, they don't create jobs. And if you give them the tax break, then that money goes right to the shareholders, not to the coffers of the American public.

    I do <span style="font-weight:bold;">not</span> agree that there are enough cuts that can be made in order to decrease our debt by any serious amount while keeping a working, let alone a governing, government. Neither do most economists. Are there abuses to the system, yes, and we need to look at that. But there are so many straw-man arguments that blame the very wrong people for them. It's very easy to talk Rand-ian philosophy that the business will take care of the community or the church will take care of the all the sick, but it doesn't work that way in real life. It's very easy to espouse an  "up by the bootstraps" mentality when you've never had to worry about the price of shoes.  (This is the proverbial "you" and maybe the Michele Bachmann "you", not anyone here in particular.)
    image
  • divinemsbeedivinemsbee member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_thought-provoking-tuesday-913?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:b2ce0d78-1a99-4bfd-b2f2-11577bdfccd1Post:8c569035-ace5-48df-8b13-aa3e165560f1">Re: Thought Provoking Tuesday 9/13</a>:
    [QUOTE]I have decided I'm voting for <strong>Rick Parry</strong> :P heheehehe
    Posted by firsttimersluck[/QUOTE]


    You mean "Governor Good-Hair"? :)
    image
  • edited December 2011
    I watched it..

    I don't generally talk about politics very often (Even with H and we usually agree on most issues), because it's something that really gets tempered flared.  I Love that people have such strong opinions about the issues and the candidates, however, I know how I feel about the issues and I already picked my candidate so barring he does/says something ridiculous, or if he doesn't get his party ticket,  I don't think I'll change my vote..

    That being said, Sarah Palin & Michele Bachmann both are completely BSC and I'm frequently embarrassed by them (as a woman, and a Republican).  More often then not for their AWish antics.

    And, this is possibly flameworthy but, can I just say that I really wish that military service were a requirement for Presidency..

    Photobucket
  • edited December 2011
    I don't think that's a flameworthy comment Sami. I semi- agree.

    No silly divinem.. I mean Parry with an A, not Perry.
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/10/stephen-colbert-backs-rick-parry-for-prez/

    unless I missed Colbert saying something about the "Gov Good Hair" comment...  hmm.. did I miss something?? lol
  • calindicalindi member
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Comment
    edited December 2011
    I also disagree that cuts are always the way to go.  Trimming the fat, sure, and stopping waste and making things more efficient (because the government is the most inefficient company in our country).  But there's this misconception right now that we need to stop spending all together, but there's no reputable economist in the world who would tell you that would work to promote growth and solve the problems that people want it to solve.  Spending isn't the bad thing - we need to spend. 

    That's like running a company and saying, "We're not making enough money!  We're losing $30,000 annually, we need to make cuts.  Let's start with the payroll company, because that's $100 per month, so there - we saved $1200!  And then we can turn off all the lights so we don't have to spend money on electricity.  That's another $4000!  No air conditioning - people can bring in their own fans!  That's another $1000!  Let's not pay that IT support company anymore, either.  And no new computers this year!  So total we've saved $30,000 annually!  That's equal to what we were losing, so officially we're breaking even!" 

    Except the company is now running much less efficiently - their computers break and no one can fix them, they have to do their own payroll and end up spending tons of hours on that instead of building new business, and employees keep bumping into things because the lights are off and end up getting hurt, and they're taking days off for migraines since they've been staring at a bright computer screen in a dark room all day.  Their employees quit because they aren't as happy.  The next year, the company is still running $10,000 in the red and can't figure out why since they made so many cuts.  The problem is they didn't fix the problem - to do so, they might have to spend more money before reaping the benefits.  Like getting new more efficient computers, paying for better more qualified employees, investing in marketing & advertising.

    No businessman will tell you that you can run a successful business by tallying up the cuts.  That's really what's wrong with the Tea Party approach.  Success will be all about spending smart (which admittedly, our government isn't known to do) and putting the company in a better position to grow so that they can (if not today or tomorrow, then the day after) make enough money to more than cover the costs that are necessary to keep it running efficiently.

    I think the example in the debate of the man without healthcare is especially telling - these people don't realize that by NOT offering a public healthcare option (not mandating, not eliminating private healthcare - just providing a basic level of coverage) then we're paying 10x that amount to provide care at hospitals and clinics for people just like that man in the example.  Because free clinics aren't free - hospitals cannot turn away someone desperately needing care, and someone has to foot that bill.  And if someone can't afford basic preventative care, they won't see a doctor until it's an emergency, which ends up being significantly more expensive.

    image

    Anniversary

  • divinemsbeedivinemsbee member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_thought-provoking-tuesday-913?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:b2ce0d78-1a99-4bfd-b2f2-11577bdfccd1Post:fd1277f9-b772-4a06-b4c9-e52aafc9c27c">Re: Thought Provoking Tuesday 9/13</a>:
    [QUOTE]That being said, <strong>Sarah Palin & Michele Bachmann both are completely BSC and I'm frequently embarrassed by them (as a woman, and a Republican)</strong>.  More often then not for their AWish antics. And, this is possibly flameworthy but, can I just say that I really wish that military service were a requirement for Presidency..
    Posted by SamiJoeB[/QUOTE]

    Thank you. I have always known, even though I may not agree with them, that there are intelligent, articulate Republican women with well-thought out platforms, and I wonder why the hell one of them isn't put out in front by the GOP instead of these wing-nuts.

    Cal- Your whole last paragraph. Sums that up so perfectly.
    image
  • LetsHikeTodayLetsHikeToday member
    Combo Breaker First Comment
    edited December 2011
    Love today's post! Thanks Cal

    I didn't watch the debate but I wish I would have. I tend to side more with the libral point of view, especially on social issues.

    I think Bachmann is ridiculous. I saw Kathy Griffin live in concert in DC around the time of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. She was invited to a congressional dinner or something and saw Bachmann there. Bachmann's aide pulled out a video camera to start taping so Kathy says to her, "So Ms. Bachmann, I am here to repeal the don't ask, don't tell act. Can I count on your support." Bachmann, not surprisingly says, "No I don't think so." So Kathy says, "Well tell me this. Were you born a bigiot or did you become this was. Nature vs. nerture." Bachmann says in return, "I will have to think about that. I will get back to you." REALLY? Come on!

    But anyway, I have issues that are important to me. Health care is definitely one. I think health care should run on a planned parent hood type scale. The more you make, the more you pay. I would gladly spend $100 a month on mine and get my coverage. However, I see too many kids whose parents don't have insurance because they can't afford it. It breaks my heart. I'd also be willing to pay a little extra so that others could have it.

    I'm also HUGE on pro choice and pro gay marriage. I believe it should stay a state issue. (Although I am disappointed more states don't allow gay marriage).

    One huge thing I hate about government? I don't want 80 year old men, who don't have a vagina making decisions about my health. I read somewhere (I don't remember the exact %) but some HUGE number of insurance companies cover ED medicine HOWEVER some low low low number cover birth control. It's bullshiit that insurance companies are allowed to do that.
    imageBabyFruit Ticker
  • ggirl2001ggirl2001 member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment Combo Breaker
    edited December 2011
    I'm jumping on this a little bit late but as someone who sees a lot of people who have Medicaid and cash assistance I can chime in quite a bit on that issue.
    First of all, most of the people who abuse medicaid are probably not your addicts. Most addicts don't even get medicaid until they end up enrolled in a treatment program and someone helps them apply. Even then, when it comes time to reenroll if they are not clean and sober, they probably won't do it. Second, drug testing for welfare/medicaid, on paper sounds great, however pretty much impossible. Again, it would cost a  lot of money to drug test every single person. Think about it, its time for their monthly check, they go in to DSS, you have to have someone working who can drug test them, and it has to be supervised or else its easy to cheat the system.So that's another employee and you would need several to drug test everyone.  You have to send it to a lab, can't do an instant. Why? Because too many false positives and such. I have seen bills from my previous clients from sending a urine tox to the lab. The cost was upwards of $300. Who is going to be responsible to pay that? You can't make the person trying to get medicaid, becaues that's not fair, especially if they are clean.

    Second, a lot of states do require an initial alcohol and drug screen prior to getting your cash assistance (Cal-thats what you saw the person getting cash back from, it was not their food stamps, cash assistance is separate), and if is determined you need treatment, then you must comply to get your assistance, or else you will be sanctioned for 45 days, have to reapply and do everything again. Again, most drug addicts, if they go "back out" probably aren't going to worry about reapplying. The ones who do are the ones who stayed in the program and stayed clean and are working to get off government programs.
    **Disclaimer, I base these above opinions based on what I saw in my 3 years of working as a drug and alcohol counselor. This is typically the cycle I observed*

    Third, my personal opinion that what is ruining medicaid/welfare is unwed teenage mothers/fathers. I'm sorry, but more often not, what I see is young girls getting pregnant, having babies, those same children growing up on welfare, having children, and the cycle continues. Instead of investing money into drug testing everyone, why isn't money invested into more educational programs and early educational programs and stop the generational problem of welfare.
    image
  • ggirl2001ggirl2001 member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment Combo Breaker
    edited December 2011
    Also, ditto about Bachmann and Palin being BSC. My sister and I were joking around the one day and we both agreed that whenever we see someone with a bumper sticker supporting either one of them we tend to judge them.

    image
  • divinemsbeedivinemsbee member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_thought-provoking-tuesday-913?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:b2ce0d78-1a99-4bfd-b2f2-11577bdfccd1Post:aff691e9-a760-4f91-ad1a-523894cb09a4">Re: Thought Provoking Tuesday 9/13</a>:
    [QUOTE]  Third, my personal opinion that what is ruining medicaid/welfare is unwed teenage mothers/fathers. I'm sorry, but more often not, what I see is young girls getting pregnant, having babies, those same children growing up on welfare, having children, and the cycle continues. Instead of investing money into drug testing everyone, why isn't money invested into more educational programs and early educational programs and stop the generational problem of welfare.
    Posted by ggirl2001[/QUOTE]

    I've seen so much of this in the South, it's completely unnerving. Add to that that many of the young girls getting pregnant now were handed off to their grandmas themselves, so when they go to hand off their baby to it's grandma, she (the girl's mom) may have only itinerantly raised a child. So the baby ends up with great-grandma who can't take the kind of care needed due to age or pure exhaustion from never really getting a break from child rearing.
    image
  • edited December 2011
    I agree that there are a lot of teenage mothers who raise their children on welfare and then their children follow in their parents footsteps. I can completely agree on that. I think it would be nice to have programs to help make college more affordable, but if that were the case - I think they should really help make it more affordable for the middle class as well, I read an article just the other day that pointed out the middle class in 1988 was more wealthy (this is when the pell grant came about I believe) than the middle class now. I can't tell you how many times I cried, because I didn't qualify for the pell grant, was under 24 and called them to be told to "go have a child or get married" to qualify for the pell grant - literally. I had to take out student loans - and then the DOE screwed that all up royally for me. (sorry built up anger if you can't tell)
    I'm not a person who studies business - I do know that some business have oversea's headquarters which is why they don't pay taxes. I can also tell you that Cisco gives companies a larger discount for overseas clients than American clients. All I can say is what my common sense knowledge tells me - If I can't pay my cell phone bill, but go out to eat every day - where is the logical cut so I can pay my bill and put money in the bank - going out to eat every day. Maybe stopping spending all together is wrong. But making cuts surely isn't. They really need to know where every dollar is going, and where they can keep the programs they want/need running just as efficiently, but with less money. That's just the common sense thing to do. I'm not a brilliant person, but I know how to handle my money - how come our congress/house/president can't seem to?? And I don't even have a BA!
    As much as I side with the republican party on a lot of things - I guess you can call me a moderate conservative? I really think we need a president who is going to comprimse to get things done - and get things in a better position and then stand his ground on certain things. You can't get everything you want, but if you can get things accomplished and get some of what you want.. then thats better than nothing, right?
    I agree that health insurance needs to cover birth control, how else are you going to keep young girls from repeating their mothers cycles (teenage moms). I agree that maybe there should be a low cost insurance plan - but I don't think it should be funded on tax dollars - maybe something more or less that falls into a tax bracket with the number of children you have like example: A single woman, with no children who makes less than $25,000 a year - pays $25 a month for health insurance. A single woman, with two children who makes between $25,000 and $50,000 a year pays $50 a month, and $10 a month per child. Etc... Now money wise I don't know if thats logical - I just pulled it out of thin air.. but I think that is a much better idea than having a universal healthcare system. And there are numerous reasons to why I think that.
    All I can say is that... we need a darn good president next election who can fix this mess. And I agree.. I think that presidents should have some military background or police background.
    Lilypie Premature Baby tickers
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards