The Stimulus "Extras" (aka, the pork)

James48843 said:
CB- I'm telling you that it's simply not true. That's not true. The bill doesn't have a clause it in that will wipe out care for old people. The conservative blogs are simply using that line to scare people in order to try and block passage of the bill.

Not giving care to old people cause their usefulness has been used up? I'm against that too. So is Obama.

Look at history- who provided care to old people in the first place? It ISN'T Republicans, who faught hard against giving old people medicare benefits. It was the dems, not the republicans, who passed and signed into law medical coverage for old people. LBJ, in the early 1960s.
Click to expand...

James48843 said:
Let me guess CB- I bet you heard that scare tactic from Rush Limbaugh yesterday, didn't you?

Here is the truth:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200902100001

The plan works to establish a standardized electronic recordkeeping system- not to have federal control of what care your doctor is giving. That's simply false.

But don't let facts get in the way...
Click to expand...
That Obama has promoted, endorsed and publicly supported the idea of creating a nationalized health care program is a "fact".

Anytime the government has taken control of any program designed to "take care" of people who they think are unable to take care of themselves has always failed it's purpose because of the bureaucratic red tape and corruption involved in managing the program. That is also a "fact"! Just the description of the outline of the bill is overwhelmingly complex. Check out just one part of the intended plan related to "improving technology" related to health care with this link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:5:./temp/~c111Tyl2Zr:e289137:

I challenge anybody that says they have taken the time to read and "understand" all this mumbo-jumbo!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:5:./temp/~c1119ly8sB::
​
 
James,

I don't quote blogs as a reputable source of information, unless I can verify if from another source, preferably something liberal, so Libs won't be turned off automatically, but if it's public record, that's even better. I do have a fondness for stock blogs though. :) and I always read the blogs here. I didn't realize Bloombergs is a blog. :confused:

They are currently doing the socialized triage medicial treatment in the UK now. I talk to several people in the UK, on a regular basis and they are living it now and the medical situation is getting worse as less people work and/or pay taxes. Over the years, resources have been depleted, and that includes doctors, so medical treatment is rationed. And getting medical ttreatment in your local area is a luxury. As resources dried up in the UK, they ended up moving to the metropolitan areas, so alot of folks have to travel 4 to 6 hours for treatment, that in a town as small as mine would only be a 30 drive at the max, to 2 or 3 hospitals that could supply major surgery or treatment. And when the Dems hold UK system up as the shining example, I know better, because I've gotten it first hand from those who had to go without treatment. Just something as common as a statin has been with held because the gov't regs said the patient didn't meet their criteria.

We've just been exposed to deifferent experience and people and have formed pretty solid opinions when it comes to this subject.

We'll just have to disagree on this and I didn't say wipe out, maybe triage would've been a better term and the Dems of the 60's sure to heck ain't the Dems of today. :laugh: So those comparisons don't wash. We could say it was the Reps that forced thru the Civil Rights bills, because the Dems were against that led by my old Senator Robert Byrd.

Socialized or nationalized medicine, just by the definition and implementation on it's own, will cause the distribution/dilution of health treatment, because we won't be able to afford to give everyone the same treatment, so it works out that we'll all receive less effective or reduced treatment. That will only reduce a person's desire to build a better life for his family. And if you only have one artificial knee, who gets it? In the UK the choice is the younger more productive person.

CB
 
Last edited:
CountryBoy said:
Huh? This has to do with not giving treatment to old folks, because their usefulness has been used up. I'm against that.
Click to expand...


CB- I'm telling you that it's simply not true. That's not true. The bill doesn't have a clause it in that will wipe out care for old people. The conservative blogs are simply using that line to scare people in order to try and block passage of the bill.

Not giving care to old people cause their usefulness has been used up? I'm against that too. So is Obama.

Look at history- who provided care to old people in the first place? It ISN'T Republicans, who faught hard against giving old people medicare benefits. It was the dems, not the republicans, who passed and signed into law medical coverage for old people. LBJ, in the early 1960s.
 
Senate passes Obama's economic recovery plan

Just three Republicans helped pass the plan on a 61-37 vote and they're already signaling they'll play hardball to preserve more than $108 billion in spending cuts made last week in Senate dealmaking.

Those cuts are among the major differences between the $819 billion House version of Obama's plan and a Senate bill costing $838 billion. Obama has warned of a deepening economic crisis if Congress fails to act. He wants a bill completed by the weekend.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090210/ap_on_go_co/congress_stimulus

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...e-approves-billion-economic-recovery-package/
​
 
James48843 said:
Let's see, where do I even begin?

"I'm sure there are many folks that believe that the old should just be left to die like the the 30's..."

You mean like the people that faught against the establishment of medicare, and medicaid? Social Security was, after all, a program initiated by and signed into law by the Democrats (FDR), and medicare and medicaid was pushed through and signed by the Democrats (LBJ).
Click to expand...

Huh? This has to do with not giving treatment to old folks, because their usefulness has been used up. I'm against that.

"Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision. "

This is what I'm talking about or did you not read this portion of the link. Plus cost/benefit ratio may be unfamiliar also. I'm not advocating the reduction of health care for the elderly at all, but it's buried in the Welfare Stimuls package and will be doled out based on the rate of return from the patient versus the cost of the procedure.

Sorry for any misunderstanding. :confused:

CB
 
CountryBoy said:
...
That sure brings back some historical significance. (My comment)

If you really are honest about knowing what this Infrastructure Stimulus Package :rolleyes: plans for your future health care, you'll want to read this, but then I'm sure there are many folks that believe that the old should just be left to die like in the '30's. (Again my comment)

CB
Click to expand...

Let's see, where do I even begin?

"I'm sure there are many folks that believe that the old should just be left to die like the the 30's..."

You mean like the people that faught against the establishment of medicare, and medicaid? Social Security was, after all, a program initiated by and signed into law by the Democrats (FDR), and medicare and medicaid was pushed through and signed by the Democrats (LBJ).
 
CountryBoy said:
As the package is now written our doctors will have to get approval from the government for treating our illness's. It won't happen immediately, but it's in the package and is coming. :blink:

CB
Click to expand...

Let me guess CB- I bet you heard that scare tactic from Rush Limbaugh yesterday, didn't you?

Here is the truth:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200902100001

The plan works to establish a standardized electronic recordkeeping system- not to have federal control of what care your doctor is giving. That's simply false.

But don't let facts get in the way...
 
CountryBoy said:
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

"Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version). "

Later in the article

"But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

"Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. "

That sure brings back some historical significance. (My comment)

If you really are honest about knowing what this Infrastructure Stimulus Package :rolleyes: plans for your future health care, you'll want to read this, but then I'm sure there are many folks that believe that the old should just be left to die like in the '30's. (Again my comment)

CB
Click to expand...

As the package is now written our doctors will have to get approval from the government for treating our illness's. It won't happen immediately, but it's in the package and is coming. :blink:

CB
 
budnipper1 said:
Surely, CB, you are not insinuating that BHO would want to control the recordings of the census, which will directly affect each and every state's ranking in the electoral college??? :confused: :D
(cynicism intended)
​
Click to expand...

Nah Budnipper,

BHO is as pure as the driven snow and would never think of such a thing that even has a whiff of socialism. :rolleyes:

CB
 
Correction- I made an error-

In the first Census in 1790, federal marshalls reported directly to the President.

Then it was run by the Secretary of State from the 1800 census to the 1840 Census.

Then it was run by the Department of the Interior from 1850 to 1880.

Then is was it's own, indepent agency, 1880-1903.

It was put under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903, then, when Commerce and Labor spilt, it followed Commerce.

It moved out of D.C, into Maryland, as part of the Commerce/Census deal in 1942 as part of the Second War Powers Act (for the reasons cited above).

So, if we followed the way it was done when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, it would be just like it was done in the 1790 Census-

Federal marshalls, reporting Directly to the President.

Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/cff-4.pdf
 
CountryBoy said:
Another Assault on the US Constitution :(

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html

President Obama said in his inaugural address that he planned to "restore science to its rightful place" in government. That's a worthy goal. But statisticians at the Commerce Department didn't think it would mean having the director of next year's Census report directly to the White House rather than to the Commerce secretary, as is customary. "There's only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement," a career professional at the Census Bureau tells me. "And it's called politics, not science."

The larger debate prompted seven former Census directors -- serving every president from Nixon to George W. Bush -- to sign a letter last year supporting a bill to turn the Census Bureau into an independent agency after the 2010 Census. "It is vitally important that the American public have confidence that the census results have been produced by an independent, non-partisan, apolitical, and scientific Census Bureau," it read.

And for those that still believe in the Constitution,

In Article I, Section 2 the US Constitution orders that "The
actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first
Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every
subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law
direct."

The Congress, by law directed that:

"The Secretary [of Commerce]
shall perform the functions and duties imposed upon him by this title,
may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out
such functions and duties, and may delegate the performance of such
functions and duties and the authority to issue such rules and
regulations to such officers and employees of the Department of
Commerce as he may designate."

As I see it, this is just another power grab and further desecrating our Constitution.

What the hell is BHO's hurry, by trying to whip these fastballs at us head high. CB
Click to expand...
Surely, CB, you are not insinuating that BHO would want to control the recordings of the census, which will directly affect each and every state's ranking in the electoral college??? :confused: :D
(cynicism intended)
​
 
The Census Bureau didn't come under the Commerce Department until the "Second War Powers Act of 1942." Prior to that, Census was it's own, indepedent body, reporting to the White House. Census information prior to that time was federally protected from being released to other agencies. The FBI, among others, wanted the data to find german and japanese ancestor individuals so they could surveille them. Census refused, citing legal reasons. The Second War Powers Act took them out of independant status, and put them under Commerce.

If you REALLY want to move things to where they were when the foundating fathers established our Constitution, CB, I'm sure we can do that.

You see, for the first fifty years, the Census was conducted by the U.S. Secretary of State's office.

If we did that today, C.B. , that would be Ms. Hillary's office who did the counting.

Are you sure you want to go back to the Founding Fathers intent on that one? :-)
 
Another Assualt on the US Constituion :(

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html

President Obama said in his inaugural address that he planned to "restore science to its rightful place" in government. That's a worthy goal. But statisticians at the Commerce Department didn't think it would mean having the director of next year's Census report directly to the White House rather than to the Commerce secretary, as is customary. "There's only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement," a career professional at the Census Bureau tells me. "And it's called politics, not science."

The larger debate prompted seven former Census directors -- serving every president from Nixon to George W. Bush -- to sign a letter last year supporting a bill to turn the Census Bureau into an independent agency after the 2010 Census. "It is vitally important that the American public have confidence that the census results have been produced by an independent, non-partisan, apolitical, and scientific Census Bureau," it read.

And for those that still believe in the Constituiton,

In Article I, Section 2 the US Constitution orders that "The
actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first
Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every
subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law
direct."

The Congress, by law directed that:

"The Secretary [of Commerce]
shall perform the functions and duties imposed upon him by this title,
may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out
such functions and duties, and may delegate the performance of such
functions and duties and the authority to issue such rules and
regulations to such officers and employees of the Department of
Commerce as he may designate."

As I see it, this is just another power grab and further desecrating our Constitution.

What the hell is BHO's hurry, by trying to whip these fastballs at us head high.

CB
 
nnuut said:
I heard on the radio this morning that part of the bailout, 4.? BILLION is going to ACORN!! I didn't see that on the list. Stinks as payback for a job well done!!:worried:
Pardon me I was wrong on that number:

Obama’s Bill Hands ACORN $5.2 Billion Bailout :mad:

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:06 PM

By: David A. Patten

A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud.
Most of the money is secreted away under an item in the now $836 billion package titled “Neighborhood Stabilization Programs.”
Ordinarily, neighborhood stabilization funds are distributed to local governments. But revised language in the stimulus bill would make the funds available directly to non-profit entities such as ACORN, the low-income housing organization whose pro-Democrat voter-registration activities have been blasted by Republicans. ACORN is cited by some for tipping the scales in the Democrats' favor in November.
According to Fox news, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., could appear to be a “payoff [more] http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_bailout_bill/2009/01/27/175729.html
Click to expand...

That doesn't suprise me. Take the time to research BHO's days as a community activist, state legislator and US Senator and you'll find his career is interwoven with ACORN for years. It's all public record. (insert shrug emoticon)

CB
 
I heard on the radio this morning that part of the bailout, 4.? BILLION is going to ACORN!! I didn't see that on the list. Stinks as payback for a job well done!!:worried:
Pardon me I was wrong on that number:

Obama’s Bill Hands ACORN $5.2 Billion Bailout :mad:

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:06 PM

By: David A. Patten

A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud.
Most of the money is secreted away under an item in the now $836 billion package titled “Neighborhood Stabilization Programs.”
Ordinarily, neighborhood stabilization funds are distributed to local governments. But revised language in the stimulus bill would make the funds available directly to non-profit entities such as ACORN, the low-income housing organization whose pro-Democrat voter-registration activities have been blasted by Republicans. ACORN is cited by some for tipping the scales in the Democrats' favor in November.
According to Fox news, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., could appear to be a “payoff [more] http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_bailout_bill/2009/01/27/175729.html
 
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

"Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version). "

Later in the article

"But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

"Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. "

That sure brings back some historical significance. (My comment)

If you really are honest about knowing what this Infrastructure Stimulus Package :rolleyes: plans for your future health care, you'll want to read this, but then I'm sure there are many folks that believe that the old should just be left to die like in the '30's. (Again my comment)

CB
 
Last edited:
Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, or NEV's, aren't golf carts.

BY law, they are vehicles with a top speed of 25 MPH, that don't have to meet the same crash standards as a normal automobile. The idea is since most trips are under 10 miles or so, many current cars can be replaced for short trips with NEVs in cities and towns. The

Here is an example of one:

View attachment 5694

One company wants to build a plant near Boston to mass-produce for use in cities and suburban areas.


​
http://www.boston.com/business/arti...c_car_builder_seeks_mass_site_for_production/


And the U.S. Army is buying 800 this year, and many more in the years ahead, as they only cost 1 to 3 cents per mile to operate. The planned purchase of 4,000 Neighborhood Electric Vehicles for the U.S. Army was approved under the Bush Administration.

http://www.army.mil/-newsreleases/2009/01/12/15707-army-announces-historic-electric-vehicle-lease/



​
 
tsptalk said:
I would like to see a list published in newspapers / on the internet, of all of the programs and extras being put into this package, with the name of the representatives and senators who are for and against each item. If the item has less than 50% support, dump it.

I have a feeling that will clean things up pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

That's a GREAT IDEA !!

A Stimulus Package is the only possible solution and everyone wants this garbage to end...

but to create even more garbage is like thowing salt on the wounds. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top