The Respectfully Republican Conversation

Options
1216217219221222252

Comments

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited February 2009

    I'm so sorry for you Moody.  Is there some type of specialist for this?  He/she needs to be found and consulted.  Someone had to write a paper on this condition.  Does it have a formal name and we can go look for the specialist for you. 

  • vivre
    vivre Member Posts: 2,167
    edited February 2009

    Moody, as Rosemary said, is there some research we can do for you? I do not understand why they cannot feed her intravenously? Can't they give her something besides sugar water? My nephew had a brain tumor on his pituitary. Fortunately, most childhood brain tumors are supposedly benign and indeed he survived the surgery and is now fine. We are praying that her doctors can come up with a solution. Maybe it is time to demand that they fly her to a better hospital?? My heart is with you. This must be so incredibly hard on your family. Let's all continue our prayer vigil tonight, and throughout the day.

  • vivre
    vivre Member Posts: 2,167
    edited February 2009

    Wow Rosemary, you are ambitious reading the porkulous package. That means there is actually someone in America reading this thing! Maybe this will be the end of Nasty Piglosi. This is an embarrassement to her own party and to their dear leader. McCain is finally coming out and speaking out against all this spending. Too bad he didn't do this when he was running for pres.

    The maddening thing about it all is that the dems kept insisting this was an emergency and needed to be passed ASAP. Most of the pork will not even take affect for 2 years. Do they really think the American people are that stupid.(no need to answer that, we know who they elected for president). Nasty and Dirty Harry were just trying to put forth every liberal cause they have been dreaming about for years, hoping no one would notice. Bama had better reign in his minions if he is going to survive.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited February 2009

    Moody, is there a Children's Hospital near you?

    What's the major medical center in your area?  I mean like a huge famous one? Or a famous research hospital?

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited February 2009

    I found something:

    ACTH deficiency: Symptoms include fatigue, low blood pressure, weight loss, weakness, depression, nausea, or vomiting.

    They need to be replacing that hormone  deficiency ACTH.  Moody ask them if they're doing that.

    Drugs used to treat hypopituitarism replace the deficient hormone.

    • Glucocorticoids (eg, hydrocortisone) are used to treat adrenal insufficiency resulting from ACTH deficiency
  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited February 2009

    I put in a search for "missing pitiuary gland and nausea" and up came a paper on it, but no signature of the specialist. That's where I found the above about ACTH.   I'm looking for a current paper that has a signature of a specialist so Moody can consult.  If anyone wants to help read?

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited February 2009

    3 hours ago, edited 2 hours ago by Rosemary44 Rosemary44 wrote:

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1873901,00.html

    If we want we can read the entire 1500+ pages of the stimulus package.  They're looking for volunteer readers so we can find out exactly what's in it..the small print, so to speak.

    http://www.readthestimulus.org/

    I started reading it.  A lot of the money, though I lost count, is being held till 2010 for different purposes.  That's number 1.  Hmmm, this was suppose to get money to hit the streets this year to stimulate employment, now.  So what's the rush to put a bad bill in place if they're holding back so much money?

    Rosemary, that is the congressional re-election plan portion of the bill.  That is the money that they will bestow with much fanfare as they run for re-election in 2010, and they won't even need to be in Washington to vote for it since it will have been included in the economic stimulus bill. 

  • abinneb
    abinneb Member Posts: 550
    edited February 2009

    I think Scottish Rite is a pediatric hospital

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited February 2009

    Pat,

    Would you believe that I couldn't read any more than what I posted about the bill.  Some warning came up about the file being corrupted.  My pc is giving me fits.  I really wanted to read more.

    I agree with you, it's being held back for election time.  What I liked better is the gossip about Obama being sneaky and approving the Blue Dog dems of the House to give Pelosi grief.  They just want robots, and mushrooms like the rep. from Tennessee has said.

    I heard it on the radio last night that the Blue Dogs were getting very upset with Pelosi, so it's not just internet gossip.  Who can follow her lead and keep their position in Congress?

  • vivre
    vivre Member Posts: 2,167
    edited February 2009

    So everything is panning out just as I had predicted. I am patting myself on the back here. I knew that eventually the Chicago dems and the DC dems and the southern blue dogs would be at odds. I just did not think it would happen in the first two weeks. This is exactly what happened in Illinois. The southern dems, the Chicago mob and some Gop blue dogs. Sadly, this ruined Illinois, and I do not want to see a repeat at the National level. Obama is going to have to take Miss Nasty out to the woodshed if he wants to survive this politcal debacle. The dems are going to self destruct.

  • vivre
    vivre Member Posts: 2,167
    edited February 2009
    House and Senate Republicans Unify Against 'Stimulus' Bill by Connie Hair (more by this author) Posted 02/05/2009 ET
    Updated 02/05/2009 ET
    Republican members of the House and Senate yesterday held a rare joint press conference to make a statement of solidarity and to give an update on the state of the "stimulus" spending bill that is being rushed through the Senate as if on roller skates. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) co-hosted the presser with Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

    DeMint reamed the Obama administration and Democrat leadership for the hasty process and the bill's content. "Americans are outraged that the Democrat majority has used our economic troubles in this country as an excuse to pass the largest spending bill in history -- with almost no debate over here -- and rammed it through quicker than anything I've ever seen on the Senate side," DeMint said. "They're very upset that an administration that has promised change has the audacity to call this massive spending bill an economic stimulus plan. ... Last week in the Congress we saw something we hadn't seen in a long time: every House Republican standing together because of the importance of this issue. ... Their courage has been contagious. All across America and here in the United States Senate it has galvanized opposition to this massive spending bill and every day the support for it is declining. We now have a chance to stop this bill and to replace it with a real economic stimulus bill that will protect and create jobs."

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-N.C.) gave voice to concerns he has over the harried and hurried manner in which the spending bill is being shoved through the Senate. "In the House the bill was written because Nancy Pelosi said she won," Graham said. "I don't know that President Obama would agree if it was her winning or him, but it is that attitude that is not going to solve America's problems on something this big. I wondered, ‘How could all of the Republicans vote no?' Now I know. Whether you agree with the substance of the bill or not the process is not befitting of the Congress. Now we're in the Senate, the great deliberative body, it takes longer to name a post office than it did to get this bill through. The markup lasted an hour and forty minutes without any hearings. ...The President is right to be concerned about the near-term economic consequence of doing nothing. He keeps saying he wants a bill by President's Day because of the last month economic figures. I am urging the President to think bigger than that. It's not about next month, it's about the next decade to come."

    Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) said he was looking for reasons to support the bill. "If I thought for one moment that it would solve some problems that we are facing in our economy, I'd be for it," Bunning said. "I'd vote for something if there were some relief in the housing industry, or some relief in the credit industry, but not one word that's written in that bill does anything to stimulate our economy or get people back to work."

    Sen. Jim Thune (R-S.D.) has offered as an amendment the House Republican alternative that was defeated by House Democrats last week. "I'm happy to be able to offer the House Republican amendment, the alternative that they voted on in the House side in the United States Senate," Thune said. "I filed that amendment and made it pending and I want to tell you that what's impressive about it is the economic model that was used to analyze the effectiveness of the President's plan was used to analyze the effectiveness of the House Republican plan and it was discovered that the House Republican plan creates twice as many jobs for half the cost. ... I hope we get a vote on that in the United States Senate."

    President Obama today began to defend the indefensible "stimulus" spending bill and the failed Keynesian economic policy it puts forth. Obama said that the Republican free-market solution embracing tax cuts as stimulus would not work. "I reject these theories and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted for change," said Obama. In other words, Obama appears to be using the Pelosi "we won" model of debate.

    When asked to respond to the President's remarks, Rep. Price said, "That statement really is wish and hope over experience. There are over 300 economists of remarkable stature around this nation that said that increased government spending doesn't improve economic productivity or economic performance in our nation including three Nobel Prize winners. What the American people know is allowing them to keep more of their own money and putting appropriate incentives in place for businesses who are the job creators in this country is the answer. If borrowing and spending would have gotten us out of the challenge that we're in right now we would have been out of it long ago. We've done a lot of borrowing and spending."

    DeMint responded, "It's incredible he [Obama] said that. ... The reason we're in recession right now goes back to bad government policy... bad policies of forcing banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back. ...What Americans bought in November was a conservative platform of cutting taxes for 95% of Americans," referring to Obama's tax cuts campaign promise. "The first bill that Obama signed raised taxes on Americans," DeMint continued. "He is not going to get away with blaming this bad economy on good policy and good free markets."

    I caught up to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tx.), the author of the tax holiday plan covered here on HUMAN EVENTS, after the presser. Gohmert told me, "The atmosphere of arrogance here from Democrats is that they think the American people are just too stupid to spend their own money to stimulate the economy."

    Yet it is Speaker Pelosi who thinks that 500 million Americans will lose their jobs unless this bill passes post haste. (Watch the video here.) As a nation of approximately 300 million people, that may just explain why Democrats are in such a panic. Perhaps she was including all the people who listened to Obama when he said he had campaigned in "all 57 states."
    Connie Hair is a freelance writer, a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference.
  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited February 2009

    I have to stop reading med papers.  Now I have a new disease.  If I keep reading, I'll have 10 more new diseases.  Everything I am reading is saying the same thing about ACTH.  So I have to give it up.  I hope Moody is reading and asking her Docs questions about what therapy they're doing. 

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited February 2009

    "President Obama today began to defend the indefensible "stimulus" spending bill and the failed Keynesian economic policy it puts forth. Obama said that the Republican free-market solution embracing tax cuts as stimulus would not work. "I reject these theories and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted for change," said Obama. In other words, Obama appears to be using the Pelosi "we won" model of debate."

    Tax cuts for business is what puts people to work.  It has been tried and found to be true over and over again. They did it in England and it worked there.  Reagan did it, it worked.  FDR got around to it after everything else was tried and it started to work, but the war kicked in.

    The song, What Kind of Fool Am I, comes to mind here as a new Obama theme song.  If the man doesn't know what went on in the near 80's, here and in England, then what should he really be doing?  He is over his head.

  • ijl
    ijl Member Posts: 897
    edited February 2009

    Oh Moody,

    My heart goes out to you and your little girl. I pray that you will get it all behind you soon and your daugther will get her treatment plan in place. It WILL happen, but you need to be strong and have faith. The doctors  probably want to make sure they know exactly what to do before rushing in with the treatment.

  • vivre
    vivre Member Posts: 2,167
    edited February 2009

    The point the media seems to be failing to mention is this: If the demwits think this plan is so great, then why don't they just pass the damn thing! They do not need any GOP votes. They can do whatever they want. Why are they trying to convince everyone that it is needed if they won't even vote for it themselves? Obama is all over the air waves trying to sell his snake oil. Why does he feel he needs to do this if his "stimulus" is such a great deal? He should just let the vote happen! We all know the answer. THEY have no idea if this stimulus will work. THEY just want to make sure THEY are not to blame when it fails. How stupid do THEY think we are? Oh yeah, I already asked that dumb question. WHO! WHO!WHO!!!!!

  • vivre
    vivre Member Posts: 2,167
    edited February 2009

    Sherri_ Giddyup cowgirl! LOL

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited February 2009

    vivre..........that is a sad but true article. 

    They need economists working on this not congressmen. 

    My only problem with her article is that I don't know what the 3 Nobel Prize winners did ...  I mean, did they win for bringing peace? or good business practices?  I do hate when journalists leave out part of the important information.  It sounds like support for her idea but really, none of us can go say, "3 Nobel Prize Winners" said this plan won't work ..  like Jimmy Carter, he won one, who in their right mind would listen to him? Nelson Mandela won a Nobel Prize but it wasn't for turning an economy around. 

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited February 2009

    They are saying there will be a vote on the package today.  I say they don't have the Dem votes needed and they won't have a vote on it today.  They would need Kennedy to come in, no?  If we don't see him, then they aren't even close and it will be another embarrassment for them for us to see the dems voting against it.

    They only want to call us obstructionists instead of sitting down and getting it vote worthy.  They've been sending all their talking heads out to use the "obstructionist" word.  It's not working, Americans don't want this package as its written today. 

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited February 2009

    Sherri, you're right ......... and there are a lot of angry people out here looking for hope and change that was promise. Seems the Cult of Obama is losing some followers. 

    ---- 

    Obama said ..."We're going to weatherize homes, that immediately puts people back to work and we're going to train people who are out of work, including young people, to do the weatherization. As a consequence of weatherization, our energy bills go down and we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What would be a more effective stimulus package than that? I mean, you're getting a threefer"

    I think he must be smokin' REEFER!   Weatherize homes with insulation? Caulking? Weather strips? This requires training? This is long term job security for for young people? And OUR energy bills go down?  Sorry PEBO, that isn't OUR bill, that's the private resident's bill.  

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited February 2009
    Instead of Scott McClellan, who was inept and disingenuous as White House spokesman, we now get Robert Gibbs, a nicer sort - who is likewise inept and disingenuous.

    For all the promises of a revolution in ethics, President Obama has created a new syndrome: The well-off can be made to stop evading their taxes by nominating them for cabinet posts. In any case, compare Bush's cabinet picks with Daschle, Geithner, Holder, Lynn, and Richardson - and discover that there is no empirical evidence of any higher ethical standard for public office in the Obama era.

    George Bush called for unity, passed some bipartisan legislation on prescription drugs and education, and appointed a few Democrats to his administration. Barack Obama appointed a few Republicans to his administration, but so far has not mapped out areas for bipartisan lawmaking. Despite his legendary cool and gravitas, he has scoffed "I won" (in the manner of Bush's "I'm the decider"). The uniter went after Rush Limbaugh in a way that Bush never quite took on Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews.

    Bush bumps into doors; so does Obama. Bush swaggered; so does Obama (often in a swimming suit). Not much difference there, either.

    Bush said Iran was part of an axis of evil. Outraged media insisted that his braggadocio was unwise and gratuitously alienated Tehran. Obama said he wanted to talk to the theocracy without preconditions and improve on the mistakes of our past. Iran answered back: "This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed. . . . Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change." So, like Bush's, Obama's words incurred Iranian disdain - but won some humiliation as dessert.

    On other issues as well - the withdrawal plan from Iraq, the Patriot Act, FISA - Obama is Bush II. Your counterexample is Guantanamo? But Obama has not closed Guantanamo, which has mysteriously become complex and problematic, and therefore has disappeared as the Gulag and Stalag of the op-ed pages. Bush said in 2006 that he wanted to close it; Obama echoed that in 2009, but promised a task force to study how to do it within a year.

    So is Obama Bush redux? Not quite.

    The comparisons are simply to point out that Obama can pick and choose to do what Bush did, without worrying over press censure or consistency with his past protestations. Remember, there is no press now, at least as we have known it since Watergate. Sometime around mid-2007, during its coverage of the Democratic primary, it ceased to be investigatory and chose to become an adulatory megaphone. A news story on the front pages of the New York Times or Washington Post, or a piece aired on NPR, or a feature in Time or Newsweek, is simply a disguised op-ed on yet another underappreciated moral or intellectual gift of Barack Obama. He has transcended the traditional doctrinaire support for liberal governance and become a sort of talisman that offers exemption to our elite from all sorts of guilt and anguish in matters ranging from race at home to multicultural sensitivity abroad.

    Obama, unlike Bush, is an adherent of the therapeutic mindset. The recession was caused by "them" - Wall Street greed mostly - and never "us," we who borrowed too much for houses we could not afford and things we did not need. The solution will be the European socialist model, in which a few thousand well-trained elites, educated at our best Ivy League law and business schools, will form partnerships with private enterprise. These Guardians will make major economic decisions and redistribute wealth through high taxes and massive entitlements - albeit with the understanding that the managerial class in both business and government will enjoy lifestyles similar to those they led in the past.

    The tragedy in all this - aside from the manifest hypocrisy of the first two weeks of the Obama administration - is that Obama is uniquely positioned to do things no other president could accomplish. He need not vote "present" or offer mere hope and change or continue to play Hamlet.

    He could, for example, raise the age eligibility of Social Security benefits, cut back on the rates of annual increase, save the system - and hear little of the invective that would greet any other who tried it.

    He could call for utopian pacifism, praise the U.N. to the skies, talk up the E.U. at every turn - but nonetheless allow Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Richard Holbrook, and James Jones to play a morose Shane to his noble-sounding Joe Starrett when the creepy Rykers and the bloodthirsty Wilsons of the world begin to cause trouble. We remember Bill Clinton not for all his bite-the-lip nonsense and therapeutic bromides, but largely for two major achievements: stopping the holocaust in the Balkans and ending government welfare as we knew it.

    Obama could radically revise the tax code, not by mega-increases, but by simplification and transition to a flat-tax formula. We are beginning to suspect that the government's revenue problem follows not from the percentages we pay, but from the fact that millions of Americans - from the lowly who take their wages in cash to the most exalted at the Treasury Department - too often cheat.

    In the next year Obama can continue to run against George Bush and whine about the "mess" that "they" left him as he tries to turn the U.S. economy and government into copies of those in Spain and Greece. He can print money and label as "stimulus" a pork plan that is designed to empower Democratic constituencies at the price of leaving generations to come with decades of debt. He can use his formidable powers of rhetoric to talk of ethical progress while he allows Clintonian ethical regress. He can hope-and-change the world - and learn to his dismay that its thugs take such magnanimity for weakness to be ridiculed and indecision to be exploited. And he can end up a mediocre president who counts on historians to whitewash his presidency just as the media once ensured it.

    Or President Obama can decline to be worshiped and instead stop the monstrous borrowing, unsustainable debt, and endless expansion of an increasingly incompetent government. And as solace, he can remember that his idol, Lincoln, was as hated by his contemporaries as he was worshiped by posterity - and that the latter is often predicated on the former.

    ©2009 Victor Davis Hanson

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited February 2009

    I have C-SPAN on, the dems were attacking Bush again.  He's gone guys.  Now the plan is up to $1.3 trillion and still counting.  They are adding to the plan, and not taking out the pork.    Put a sign on the capitol building:  CLOSED FOR MEMBERS TO GET FURTHER ECONOMIC EDUCATION.  Before they do permanent damage to all of us.

  • suzfive
    suzfive Member Posts: 456
    edited February 2009

    Moody - Has a pediatric endocrinologist been in to see Olivia? Two good ones in Atlanta are Dr. Lillian Meacham and Dr. Eric Fulner (both got 5 out of 5 rating on Health Grades). The pituitary gland secretes hormones so an endocrinologist should be seeing her - they would know what type of treatment to give. Were they able to get the feeding tube in? Praying that they can figure this all out and she is on the road to recovery.

  • shokk
    shokk Member Posts: 1,763
    edited February 2009

    I miss Tony Snow.................woooooooooooooohooooooooooooooo........the Republicans refuse to bend over...............woooooooooooooohoooooooooo..............the stink keeps seeping out of the stimulus.................drip by drip.............woooooooooooohooooooooooooooooo..........Shokk

  • shokk
    shokk Member Posts: 1,763
    edited February 2009

    First of all Vivre so sorry I missed your Birthday.............wooooooooooooohoooooooooooo.........I hope you had a BITE of birthday cake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Moody just so sorry what is happening to your baby girl..............she is in my constant prayers as well as you, your husband and your son.................Shokk

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited February 2009

    I just heard, the big fan fare yesterday over the pay rules for TARP borrowing companies, it's not retroactive.  So all those who borrowed won't have to worry about this pesky rule.   Right now it won't affect anyone unless they come back for more. 

  • suzfive
    suzfive Member Posts: 456
    edited February 2009

    Are they stupid or what? I heard on the radio today that the phone lines on Capitol Hill were jammed with people calling in madder than a hatter over this bill. They do not want it!!  Someone needs to tell PBO his role is to be the nation's cheerleader not the spreader of doom and gloom - permanent recession - give me a break - if we do NOTHING, the economy will recover on its own. If we spend 1.3 trillion mostly on pork projects - yeah - it could become permanent because everyones taxes will have to be raised to pay for it. What happened to PBO and his no pork. Oh yeah, once this behemoth gets passed - they will have to ban pork!

    1.3 trillion dollars and did you know that the SCHIPS bill PBO signed the other day will allow families of four making up to about $90,000 to get on board. I am all for providing health care to poor children - but if that is poor - I raised five children and didn't know I was destitute and even sent three of them to college!!

  • suzfive
    suzfive Member Posts: 456
    edited February 2009

    DO DEMOCRATS PAY TAXES!!!! -  Do you think that is why they tend to think they are no big deal - I mean who needs a tax cut when you don't pay them in the first place!!

    Solis Senate Session Postponed in Wake of Husband's Tax Lien Revelations

    Updated 3:30 p.m.
    By Michael A. Fletcher
    A Senate committee today abruptly canceled a session to consider President Obama's nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis to be labor secretary in the wake of a report saying that her husband yesterday paid about $6,400 to settle tax liens against his business -- including liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years.

    The report, by USA Today, came just before the Senate's Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee was slated to meet to consider Solis's nomination, which had been delayed by questions over her role on the board of the pro-labor organization American Rights at Work. A source said that committee members did not learn about the tax issue until today.

    "Today's executive session was postponed to allow members additional time to review the documentation submitted in support of Representative Solis's nomination to serve in the important position of Labor Secretary," read a joint statement issued by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the panel's chairman, and Mike Enzi (Wyoming), the committee's ranking Republican. "There are no holds on her nomination and members on both sides of the aisle remain committed to giving her nomination the fair and thorough consideration that she deserves. We will continue to work together to move this nomination forward as soon as possible."

    No new date has been set for the hearing. The disclosure about Solis's husband comes after tax problems caused trouble for three of Obama's top appointees, leading two of them -- HHS-nominee Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer, who was to be chief performance officer -- to withdraw.

    Asked about the USA Today report at the White House daily briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs emphasized that the nominee's tax returns are in order.

    "Well, I read the story in USA Today, and it quotes somebody that works here, so obviously we've -- we know about this story. I'll say this. We reviewed her tax returns, and her tax returns are in order," said Gibbs.

    "The story denotes that her husband had some issues with paying a business tax, and obviously that tax is -- should be paid. He's -- she's not a partner in that business, Gibbs continued. "So we're not going to penalize her for her husband's business mistakes. Obviously, her husband, I think, has and should pay any taxes that he owes. "

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited February 2009

    Maybe they should nominate Boxer, Pelosi and Kennedy to something --- that maybe the answer to the weatherization program -- past due taxes from these guys could really bring in some dough!

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited February 2009

    Just read this in an article about Panetta who is supposed to be the new head of the CIA ... 

    The Bush White House approved CIA waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning, for three prisoners in 2002 and 2003. The CIA banned the practice internally in 2006. Obama has prohibited harsh interrogation techniques going forward.  (So Obama banned an already banned practice -- woooo hoooo! )

    But Panetta said if interrogators went beyond the methods they were told were legal, they should be investigated. (duh!)

    Panetta said he would come to the job with a list a questions he wants the CIA to be able to answer, including the location of Osama bin Laden, and when and where al-Qaida will next try to attack the United States. ( Really?!  And I bet they will just open their PDA's and say, "Shucks, do we haveta tell?")

    "Our first responsibility is to prevent surprise," he said.  (Ya think? As if the previous administration was doing everything they could to keep us safe?)

    The former White House chief of staff under President Clinton and ex-congressman from California has much experience in government but little in intelligence gathering or analysis. He told the committee that he has asked former CIA chiefs_ notably former President George H.W. Bush - how to compensate for that shortcoming.  (I guess Panetta didn't think George W would think of asking his own dad.)

    "They all told me to listen carefully to the professionals at the agency but also to stay closely engaged with Congress," Panetta said. "I am a creature of Congress."  (And this is good news?)

    Panetta acknowledged he has little professional intelligence experience. But, he said: "I know Washington. I know how it works. I think I also know why it fails to work."  (Well, he is from California and we know it's in the crapper, so #1, why consider him? And #2 (maybe the crapper comment belongs here but oh well) Why hire inexperienced intelligence when we could have someone with experience in this job that is intended to keep America safe?)

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited February 2009

    Oh gosh,  there is just so much out there negative about this spending package!  I hope our gov't will listen:

    Ben Smith at Politico has an interesting bit about Obama's Trillion Dollar Jockstrap that hadn't occurred to us until now: a good deal of the spending package merely REPLACES items the states had to cut from their budgets this year.

    So, a year ago, these programs were paid for by states, but now Obama is going to have the federal government pay for them, as the states can no longer afford them.

    That does not mean these programs and initiatives are needed...and it shows, clearly, that in many cases this spending will not create new jobs (only keep some jobs that exist now, but would be lost if that state money is not replaced with federal money).

    How can something be considered a "stimulus" if it's just replacing funding that was there a year ago, merely sending the bill to Washington instead of Sacramento, Albany, Springfield, or Columbus?

    This is more a bailout to the states than anything.

    We can't speak for all of the states, but can talk at length about Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, three states those of us here have spent a lot of time in. The city, county, and state governments in all three are riddled with waste and corruption. Illinois and Ohio actually have a fairly competitive fight for the title of most corrupt, in terms of construction project spending scams. Ohio's roads are built with a three-year obsolescence, so the same crews that tore up that road last summer will be back to tear it up again in short order, to perpetuate an endless cycle of one year ripping up the road, one year rebuilding it, one year leaving it alone to crack and fall apart, then ripping it up again to go back to where it all began.

    Why does the German autobahn hold up so well in relatively the same winter conditions as Ohio, with the greater pressure put on it by faster moving vehicles?

    Because the Germans use quality materials and sound engineering to build infrastructure projects designed to last decades, not a single midwestern winter.

Categories