The Respectfully Republican Conversation

I remember that old story, Moody.  $$$$

I was watching CNN morning news and I think they called them resolutions that the president can file, they aren't major changes he can make but he can do these.  I know it wasn't executive orders.  They said the new policies would be in effective by Jan 21st.  There were some dealing with giving help to low income uninsured people, it would make it harder for them to get care.  Others that would allow industry to destroy protected land for environmental purposes.  There were quite a few doosies, I was so POed when I was listening to this.  I can't understand why someone would abuse their power because it won't hurt them in the long run and doesn't care if people like him or not.  Just unreal!!!  I am so glad I did not vote for him so I don't have to feel guilty about allowing this abuse of power!

They did say that Obama might be able to get Congress to override his decisions since there is a democrat majority but in the meantime these things will be allowed to happen!  I'll see if I can find a link on CNN to the story.

Moody

Let's get this straight,  That's my wife's dog....Tessie (Cam's Contessa) is a 3 pound girly dog..I'm a big strong man.   But she does sleep in my lap.

The bailout is being blamed on GW? UM, who voted for it?  (Although, I do think GW is one of the reasons for our Perfect Storm on our economy, I don't think he is responsible for the bailout: its success or its failure .. whatever happens.

My problem with US government owned companies:  say the US took over one of the car makers or ($$$) started running one of the banks/insurance companies, etc ... then we start looking like China. Remember MAO? Remember his Gang of 4?  We will always need public enterprise.  The problem here is that the companies want PRIVATE income, PRIVATE profit, PRIVATE perks (ie planes, salaries, pensions) but then they want the PUBLIC to share the loss?  Since when did the government say open a business and we will insure you? back you? Who in their right mind gives away HUGE over the top salaries and says they can't pay their bills?  And its not just the higher ups .. the little guy makes $78 per hour??  Where do I sign up???

The Republicans have always reflected what is worst about our country -  ME FIRST, THE HELL WITH THE OTHER GUY.  It is this attitude that caused the Greed on Wallstreet which has imploded and is sending our country into its worst financial chaos since the depression.  And what do the greedy CEOs do when they get on their knees to beg for more money, they fly to DC in their private jets.  What does AIG doe with the hundred billions given it to stay in business?  Why more parties of course.  What do the banks do with all that money?  They pay huge bonuses to their executives.  I'm willing to bet all of these executives are REPUBLICANS.

sorry but my kids side tracked me and I am just getting back on my computer, I will dig around to find the info I saw on the news.

I know but that just seems wrong, why should an employer be allowed to see my health records?  As long as I am physically capable of the standards required for the job what more do they need?  That is as bad as my car insurance company running my credit report to determine my insurance rates.  That has nothing to do with my driving record.

The dems are responsible for much of our problem with the economy...remember sub-prime mortgages?  President Clinton signed that bill.  Minorities and lower income people were able to get loans when they couldn't afford  and the lender knew there were be many defaults.  But, everyone is entitled to the American dream.  And then there were those that bought houses that they couldn't afford..like making $50,000 and buying a $300,000 house.  And these are the people that are going to get help?  How about the people who are/were paying their mortgages and lost their job or some other catastrophic event happened?

Let's talk about "Joe the Plumber."  Do any dems not see privacy being invaded?  I haven't heard many dems being outraged by this.  They just make fun of Joe.   I hope he sues the state of Ohio.  Then he could finally afford to buy his plumbing company. 

"FEYERICK (voice-over): As medical director for family planning in a clinic in west Philadelphia Dr. Steven () worries that last minute rule changes by the Bush administration will hurt his uninsured patients"

That's a blanket statement.  If your uninsured you report to no one about anything.  It's the people who are insured where every little complaint goes into an insurance record. 

Sooooo, what's he talking about?

Here is a few excerpts from rosemary44's link:

"Since Jimmy Carter, every President has complained about midnight regulations and, four or eight years later, every President has issued them. On a percentage basis, George Bush senior holds the record: his Administration issued a greater proportion of its rules during the midnight period-generally defined as the last three months in office-than any other President's. In absolute terms, though, Bill Clinton takes the gold: his Administration, during its midnight phase, published more than twenty-six thousand pages' worth of rules in the Federal Register. (According to the National Journal, by the time Clinton left office "the journalists who cover the White House had thrown up their hands at the prospect of keeping up.")

The list of the things GWB wants to "rule" on is very disturbing indeed, but I didn't see anything about private health records.  With HIPAA your privacy is protected, unless of course like sherriG pointed out you work for a self-insured company.  My hubby works for UPS and they are self insured.  as with any health insurance there are good and bad.  self-insured companies have they right to consider private health records before hiring someone i believe.  it is really a "catch 22" so to speak.

if i am the one wanting the job and you have pre-exhisting conditions i.e. bc then of course i dont want that to affect my getting hired.  if i own the company and i am self insured and hiring someone with pre-exhisting conditions will raise my premiums, then i want to the right to not hire.  i can see both sides. 

but if your company is not self-insured then they cant access records as per HIPAA rules that bush doesnt seem to be messing with-----from what i see.

but i agree in that looks like he may be playing the "devil's advocate" on his way out.  HOWEVER as you can see from the excerpt above, every president does this, just we never heard about it til now cuz media wants to MAKE SURE EVERYONE hates bush before he leaves.

"Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate have already indicated that they will try to rescind the most egregious of Bush's midnight regulations. There are a few ways to do this, all of them difficult. Under an obscure law passed in 1996, Congress has the power to revoke recently imposed rules."

Shock, that makes perfect sense to me. People have bad credit for a lot of reasons but one reason is not being careful about purchases and paying bills. People have insurance claims for a lot of reasons but one reason is not being careful about maintainence, and prevention. Both claims and poor credit are correlated with a lack of prudence.

BDS alert: NYT and Huffpo get totally unhinged

I'm telling ya, I need to turn Unhinged into an encyclopedia set.

The Memorial Day holiday brought out the BDS crazies this weekend.

In case you missed it, the NYTimes used Memorial Day to bludgeon President Bush with a disingenuous editorial about the GI Bill. Don't read it if you've already had breakfast. But here's a typical, nutso passage:

Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers' lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.

So lavish with other people's sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.

The White House responded forcefully (something they should do more often). This is the full statement released yesterday:

Once again, the New York Times Editorial Board doesn't let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions - no matter how misleading they may be.

In today's editorial, "Mr. Bush and the GI Bill", the New York Times irresponsibly distorts President Bush's strong commitment to strengthening and expanding support for America's service members and their families.

This editorial could not be farther from the truth about the President's record of leadership on this issue. In his January 2008 State of the Union Address, while proposing a series of initiatives to support our military families, President Bush specifically called upon Congress to answer service members' request that they be able to transfer their GI Bill benefits to their spouses and children. In April, he sent a legislative package to the Hill that would expand access to childcare, create new authorities to appoint qualified spouses into civil service jobs, provide education opportunities and job training for military spouses, and allow our troops to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children.

As Congress debates the best way to expand the existing GI Bill, Secretary Gates has laid out important guidelines to ensure that legislation meets our service members' needs and rewards military service. First, since our servicemen and women have regularly requested the ability to transfer their GI bill benefits to their family members, legislation should include transferability. Second, legislation should provide greater rewards for continued military service in the all volunteer force.

There are several GI bill proposals under consideration in both the House and Senate. The Department of Defense has specific concerns about legislation sponsored by Senator Webb because it lacks transferability and could negatively impact military retention.

The President specifically supports the GI Bill legislation expansion proposed by Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain because it allows for the transferability of education benefits and calibrates an increase in education benefits to time in the service.

Though readers of the New York Times editorial page wouldn't know it, President Bush looks forward to signing a GI bill that supports our troops and their families, and preserves the experience and skill of our forces.

Reader Michael Moran e-mailed this morning:

The New York Times, in a remarkable example of hypocrisy and political opportunism, published a Memorial Day editorial opposing President Bush's threatened veto of the G.I. Bill legislation currently being "crafted" by Congress.

The Times stated, "Mr. Bush - and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain - have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons"... yet President Bush's well known points in opposition to the legislation... the lack of transferability of benefits to spouses or children... and the lack of greater rewards for continued service in our all volunteer force... were ignored.

Rather, the NY Times chose to ridicule President Bush's entirely valid additional point... that being that to provide full tuition "and other expenses" for fours years at a public university for three years of service would likely hurt our military by negatively impacting retention.

But then again, this is, after all, the New York Times.... the newspaper that chose to:

* Adamantly and continuously oppose the Patriot Act.
* Publish front page Abu Ghraib stories for 32 consecutive days in May and June of 2004.
* Publicize and criticize a confidential government program to monitor international financial transactions by terrorists, citing undisclosed sources.
* Publicize and criticize a confidential government program to monitor outbound communication to terrorists, citing undisclosed sources.
* Publish, at a reduced rate, an ad by MoveOn.org headlining "General BetrayUs" on the occasion of Gen. Petraeus' testimony, report and recommendations to the President and Congress last September.

The very same subject editorial brazenly states the obvious lie, "This page strongly supports a larger, sturdier military."

If that were to be believed, one can hardly imagine the positions that would be taken by the New York Times if it opposed a larger, sturdier military.

...Earlier this week, the White House issued a statement criticizing NBC TV for artfully... and purposefully... editing an interview with President Bush to misrepresent his response to an interview question from NBC's Richard Engel.

Today, the White House again issued a statement directed at the media, this time setting the New York Times straight regarding the subject editorial.

I strongly and wholeheartledly applaud both actions.

The NYTimes came close, but no one can out-HuffPo the HuffPo's writers.

The headline says it all: Dead Troops Remembered By President Who Had Them Killed.

As an antidote to such bile, I recommend re-reading the words of fallen soldiers and their families that I linked to over the weekend:

"Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark." - Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr.

"He knew what he was fighting for." - father of Lt. Michael P. Murphy.

"He felt that what we were doing was just and right." - Charles Cummings, father of fallen hero Army PFC Branden Cummings, who died in an IED attack in Diyala, Iraq.

"I genuinely believe the United States Army is a force of good in this world." - 2LT Mark Daily.

I love Michelle M!!  She really doesn't pull any punches!

Okay---Timothy Geithner will be The new treasury secretary........ Anyone know anything about him?

I say GO FOR IT LuAnn!

Shirley