-
Sidebar Ads
-
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Email
Print
Digg
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!Member Opinions:
By: SocEtTuem on 8/25/09
Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression Bart Gordon is a favorite of the Post?
Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression Bart Gordon is a favorite of the Post?
By: barrettbear on 8/25/09
Must be doing something right.
Must be doing something right.
By: BoltAction on 8/25/09
Why does anyone believe a word this man says? Do you think he will really put his family on the plan they are purposing? He knows people are beginning to wake up and will say whatever it takes to save his job.
More government programs we have means more taxes. I am tired of my money being wasted by our elected officials.
Why should I have to do without and cut back when all our government does is spend, spend, spend.
Government programs come at a price. And we are the ones who pay that price.
Why does anyone believe a word this man says? Do you think he will really put his family on the plan they are purposing? He knows people are beginning to wake up and will say whatever it takes to save his job.
More government programs we have means more taxes. I am tired of my money being wasted by our elected officials.
Why should I have to do without and cut back when all our government does is spend, spend, spend.
Government programs come at a price. And we are the ones who pay that price.
By: Alaskadave on 8/25/09
I didn't hear many cheers, especially after all the paid supporters left promptly at 8:30 PM. OT was not approved!
I didn't hear many cheers, especially after all the paid supporters left promptly at 8:30 PM. OT was not approved!
By: ItIsMeAgain on 8/25/09
Hey Alaskadave, name ONE paid supporter there. Rush told you they were there, but you didn't do any research on your own, did you? You people need to find out the facts. Because of people like you I need more health insurance. You make me sick.
Hey Alaskadave, name ONE paid supporter there. Rush told you they were there, but you didn't do any research on your own, did you? You people need to find out the facts. Because of people like you I need more health insurance. You make me sick.
By: LuckyDog on 8/25/09
Bart continually misrepresented the effect that the proposed house bill will have on abortion. He argued repeatedly that the proposed house bill will not allow public funds to be used to pay for abortions, continually citing the Hyde Amendment. This is not true, and Bart is well aware of it. (For more information see: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating). He knew what he was saying was wrong, but he just kept repeating the same lies over and over. Why? Because he knows that polls show that approximately 75% of all citizens oppose the use of public money to pay for abortion, yet he chose to vote for public funding of abortions.
Bart continually misrepresented the effect that the proposed house bill will have on abortion. He argued repeatedly that the proposed house bill will not allow public funds to be used to pay for abortions, continually citing the Hyde Amendment. This is not true, and Bart is well aware of it. (For more information see: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating). He knew what he was saying was wrong, but he just kept repeating the same lies over and over. Why? Because he knows that polls show that approximately 75% of all citizens oppose the use of public money to pay for abortion, yet he chose to vote for public funding of abortions.
By: army_retired on 8/26/09
It amazes me that people still have the wool over their eyes. Bart as one of the 6 blue dog democrat voted with Reed and Palosi the most liberal and most destructive congress ever. I believe he is saying what he has to like boltaction said to keep his self in congress. He was not going to have townhalls originally until he was advised to do so. He used to be for the people in this state that is why he was so popular, but my view as is from many others, BART ITS TIME TO GO!!! Lets get someone in there that votes for what tennessee wants not your high ranking buds in congress. And one more thing remember all the the news papers and media including this one is way on the left. Shame!!!
It amazes me that people still have the wool over their eyes. Bart as one of the 6 blue dog democrat voted with Reed and Palosi the most liberal and most destructive congress ever. I believe he is saying what he has to like boltaction said to keep his self in congress. He was not going to have townhalls originally until he was advised to do so. He used to be for the people in this state that is why he was so popular, but my view as is from many others, BART ITS TIME TO GO!!! Lets get someone in there that votes for what tennessee wants not your high ranking buds in congress. And one more thing remember all the the news papers and media including this one is way on the left. Shame!!!
By: barrettbear on 8/26/09
When Senator Corker and Congressman Gordon go back to Washington, maybe the two can inform our concerned lawmakers what our very thoughts are.
Since our concerns are about the cost and involvement of the government, go ahead and do away with all federal funded government programs.
Why use my tax dollars to fund aide for dependent children, food stamps for people unemployeed through no fault of their own, free health care for dependent children, supplemental checks for the disabled, children with just one parent,seniors who have worked years and have paid taxes.
The list of recipients receiving any kind of government assisitance are endless. So why spend another dime on programs to help them?
When Senator Corker and Congressman Gordon go back to Washington, maybe the two can inform our concerned lawmakers what our very thoughts are.
Since our concerns are about the cost and involvement of the government, go ahead and do away with all federal funded government programs.
Why use my tax dollars to fund aide for dependent children, food stamps for people unemployeed through no fault of their own, free health care for dependent children, supplemental checks for the disabled, children with just one parent,seniors who have worked years and have paid taxes.
The list of recipients receiving any kind of government assisitance are endless. So why spend another dime on programs to help them?
By: LuckyDog on 8/27/09
Barrettbear:
In some ways, I agree with you. I like to think of myself as a compassionate person, and I do the best I can to help those in need. I believe the government should provide a safety net for those who are unable to help themselves. I don’t have a problem with that, but many government programs go far beyond providing a safety net. For example, take a look at: http://www.medicare.gov/MedicareReform/drugbenefit.asp
This is a website that discusses the prescription drug benefit that congress passed a few years ago. The first sentence reads, “For the first time ever, everyone with Medicare, regardless of income, health status, or prescription drug usage, will have access to prescription drug coverage.” Notice the “regardless of income” part of that sentence. I know that prescription drugs are very expensive, but nonetheless, many seniors have substantial assets and would have been able to pay for those costs themselves. Instead, federal government borrows money that it doesn’t have to pay for their prescriptions, and our grandchildren will have to repay those amounts with interest. It just doesn’t make sense.
If our federal government was flush with cash, I would be the first one in favor of free healthcare for all. That’s simply not the case. Just today in the DNJ, I saw a story that the 10 year projected deficit was something like $9 trillion dollars (that’s with a “T”). It amazes me that others (China, the Saudis, etc.) are still willing to buy our government debt. How can we realistically expect to repay it, especially with all of the boomers moving from the workforce to Social Security and Medicare over the next decade?
Healthcare reform does need to occur, but we need to be very careful to design a modest bill that we can afford. There are a variety of problems with our current healthcare program, and many of these could be fixed fairly easily, and we certainly wouldn’t need a government run plan to do it. (For example, make insurance companies cover all individuals who apply and require them to cover pre-existing conditions. ) At some point, we just have to say that the buck stops here, and we can’t afford some things. Once we are at a balanced budget, then let’s start talking about new government programs.
Barrettbear:
In some ways, I agree with you. I like to think of myself as a compassionate person, and I do the best I can to help those in need. I believe the government should provide a safety net for those who are unable to help themselves. I don’t have a problem with that, but many government programs go far beyond providing a safety net. For example, take a look at: http://www.medicare.gov/MedicareReform/drugbenefit.asp
This is a website that discusses the prescription drug benefit that congress passed a few years ago. The first sentence reads, “For the first time ever, everyone with Medicare, regardless of income, health status, or prescription drug usage, will have access to prescription drug coverage.” Notice the “regardless of income” part of that sentence. I know that prescription drugs are very expensive, but nonetheless, many seniors have substantial assets and would have been able to pay for those costs themselves. Instead, federal government borrows money that it doesn’t have to pay for their prescriptions, and our grandchildren will have to repay those amounts with interest. It just doesn’t make sense.
If our federal government was flush with cash, I would be the first one in favor of free healthcare for all. That’s simply not the case. Just today in the DNJ, I saw a story that the 10 year projected deficit was something like $9 trillion dollars (that’s with a “T”). It amazes me that others (China, the Saudis, etc.) are still willing to buy our government debt. How can we realistically expect to repay it, especially with all of the boomers moving from the workforce to Social Security and Medicare over the next decade?
Healthcare reform does need to occur, but we need to be very careful to design a modest bill that we can afford. There are a variety of problems with our current healthcare program, and many of these could be fixed fairly easily, and we certainly wouldn’t need a government run plan to do it. (For example, make insurance companies cover all individuals who apply and require them to cover pre-existing conditions. ) At some point, we just have to say that the buck stops here, and we can’t afford some things. Once we are at a balanced budget, then let’s start talking about new government programs.
By: Farmall on 8/27/09
We have assigned risk for car insurance, we could do the same thing for heath insurance, for those with pre-existing conditions.
We have assigned risk for car insurance, we could do the same thing for heath insurance, for those with pre-existing conditions.
By: barrettbear on 8/27/09
Luckydog, you are a wonderful person. Someone that has actually made communicating worth the while.
Giving a responsible, intelligent view on the matter.
I agree with you and appreciate you breaking down the current situation on understandable terms.
Luckydog, you are a wonderful person. Someone that has actually made communicating worth the while.
Giving a responsible, intelligent view on the matter.
I agree with you and appreciate you breaking down the current situation on understandable terms.
By: LuckyDog on 8/27/09
barrettbear: Thank you for your kind words. I've enjoyed our discussion as well. I really do fear that we will create a huge new entitlement program, and it's almost impossible to take away an entitlement once it has been granted (e.g. no congressman would ever think of trying to take away the prescription drug benefits from seniors). We really need to think this through before we act. That's why I think Obama's plan to try to pass it before the August recess was downright reckless.
barrettbear: Thank you for your kind words. I've enjoyed our discussion as well. I really do fear that we will create a huge new entitlement program, and it's almost impossible to take away an entitlement once it has been granted (e.g. no congressman would ever think of trying to take away the prescription drug benefits from seniors). We really need to think this through before we act. That's why I think Obama's plan to try to pass it before the August recess was downright reckless.
By: barrettbear on 8/27/09
Luckydog, I look forward to future discussions. Once again, thanks.
Luckydog, I look forward to future discussions. Once again, thanks.
Login and voice your opinion!