The Republicans have made a crusade out of wanting to overturn the ACA and Romney has promised to make that a first-day-in-office priority. Add to that the fact that Romney and Ryan both favor a new Medicare model where senior citizens would be given vouchers to purchase private insurance.
what eye thynk: The Republicans want us to believe that putting them in charge and allowing them to make major changes to our entitlement programs will make our national deficit disappear and we’ll all be doing the Disney dance of happiness under a sun-filled sky; but for the average senior citizen in this country, the dissolution of Medicare as we know it will not have a happy ending.
First, the ACA, which prohibits private insurance companies from denying insurance for a pre-existing condition, will be gone.
Next, when this Republican tag team gets their new Medicare voucher program set up and senior citizens start shopping with their new vouchers, how many will be turned away because of a pre-existing condition? Think about it--how many people get to retirement age without a pre-existing condition? If the Democrats tried this, Republicans would be screaming themselves hoarse about “death panels”.
Romney went out and got himself an ideologue to join his campaign to appeal to the far right and bolster his conservative creds; but blindly following the doctrine of your ideology is not the sign of a leader, it is the sign of a despot.
Showing posts with label conservative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservative. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Friday, August 10, 2012
Romney's Hypocritical Welfare Argument
In Des Moines on Wednesday, Romney continued his attack on President Obama and welfare saying that when the work requirement was first argued in Congress, then Senator Obama voted against it, (which is true). Mr. Romney went on, “Now he's President, and just a few days ago he put that original intent in place with a very careful executive action, he removed the requirement of work from welfare”.
what eye thynk: First, let’s get the facts straight…the work-for-welfare requirement has not been removed. Then, let’s call Romney's latest attack what it is…hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services granted all states some flexibility in the work-for-welfare requirement first put into effect in 1996 under President Clinton. Following the President's signature, states will now be permitted to extend training periods as well as grant some exemptions. Each state must show that they have a plan better suited to their individual needs and must ask for and gain approval before making any changes. This is the exact type of flexibility that was sought by twenty-nine Republican governors in 2005 -- INCLUDING THEN GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY.
Last year, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, (Republican) asked for and was granted an easing of the work rule. Some families in that state can now be exempted from the work requirement for six months while officials work with them to stabilize their household.
More recently, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, (Republican) asked that refugee families be treated differently because of cultural barriers to employment.
The President, along with the Department of Health and Human Services, has given states exactly what they have been asking for for seven years, but Romney refuses to acknowledge that the impetus for the changes originated with Republicans like himself, choosing instead to vilify the President in the hope that his sanctimonious outpouring of outrage will drive a wedge between President Obama and blue collar voters.
The numbers of white and minority welfare recipients are currently fairly equal, but why allow facts to get in the way when ignoring them can be used to feed the latent racism of this country’s conservatives? And what better way to do that than to malign our first black President by portraying him as coddling his own?
what eye thynk: First, let’s get the facts straight…the work-for-welfare requirement has not been removed. Then, let’s call Romney's latest attack what it is…hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services granted all states some flexibility in the work-for-welfare requirement first put into effect in 1996 under President Clinton. Following the President's signature, states will now be permitted to extend training periods as well as grant some exemptions. Each state must show that they have a plan better suited to their individual needs and must ask for and gain approval before making any changes. This is the exact type of flexibility that was sought by twenty-nine Republican governors in 2005 -- INCLUDING THEN GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY.
Last year, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, (Republican) asked for and was granted an easing of the work rule. Some families in that state can now be exempted from the work requirement for six months while officials work with them to stabilize their household.
More recently, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, (Republican) asked that refugee families be treated differently because of cultural barriers to employment.
The President, along with the Department of Health and Human Services, has given states exactly what they have been asking for for seven years, but Romney refuses to acknowledge that the impetus for the changes originated with Republicans like himself, choosing instead to vilify the President in the hope that his sanctimonious outpouring of outrage will drive a wedge between President Obama and blue collar voters.
The numbers of white and minority welfare recipients are currently fairly equal, but why allow facts to get in the way when ignoring them can be used to feed the latent racism of this country’s conservatives? And what better way to do that than to malign our first black President by portraying him as coddling his own?
Friday, July 13, 2012
Flip-flop Friday - Romney on Gay Rights and Marriage Equality
“As we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.” -- 1994, in a letter from Mitt Romney to the gay rights group Log Cabin Club, written during his run for the U.S. Senate.
“Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear.”-- 2003 as governor of Massachusetts after that state’s Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling that denial of marriage to same sex couples was not legal. Gov. Romney continued to fight their decision until 2007 when his one term as governor ended.
“I would, unlike this president, defend the Defense of Marriage Act. I would also propose and promote once again an amendment to the (U.S.) constitution to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.” -- 2012, Mitt Romney speaking to the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
what eye thynk: So, when Romney wanted to be a U.S. Senator from historically liberal Massachusetts, he was for equal rights for the LGTB community. By the time he became governor of Massachusetts, and no longer needed their support, he was against it.
Now, he would like to change our U.S. Constitution to reflect his current prejudices, turning every gay, lesbian, transgender and bi-sexual American into a second class citizen. But, stick around, this is only July. Mitt has plenty of time to find another view to embrace on this issue.
If God has a sense of humor, we’ll find out that Sheldon Adelson is secretly gay and wants to marry one of the Koch brothers. Then we can all watch Mitt spin in circles as he tries to retain access to all that Adelson-Koch money while attempting to convince the far right that he is still one of them.
FLIP --“Look at my record. I’ve been best-buds with members of the Log Cabin Club since 1994!”
FLOP -- “But I privately pitied them and only became friendly so I could help them pray away the gay!”
FLIP -- “Look at my record again. I even asked Richard Grenell, an openly gay man, to be my campaign advisor on foreign affairs. No, wait, my conservative patrons didn’t like him and he was forced to quit before he really started. Sorry. Forget that one. My bad.”
FLOP --“You see, I cleansed my campaign of all that nasty gay influence when you asked me to! (And I want you to know that Sheldon is, in reality, a woman. He has just been pretending to be a man because of a secret Russian plot to kidnap him and turn him into a prostitute at one of his own Macau casinos. So, you see, that Adelson-Koch marriage is really okay. And, besides, they‘re both really rich, and the rich are the BEST!)”
If God were fair, He would guarantee that every family included at least one gay member so all straight people could see that being gay is just a different way of being human. Unfortunately, God, and life, aren't fair. It is up to us to ensure that equality is equal. Stopping Mitt is one way to continue the fight.
“Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear.”-- 2003 as governor of Massachusetts after that state’s Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling that denial of marriage to same sex couples was not legal. Gov. Romney continued to fight their decision until 2007 when his one term as governor ended.
“I would, unlike this president, defend the Defense of Marriage Act. I would also propose and promote once again an amendment to the (U.S.) constitution to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.” -- 2012, Mitt Romney speaking to the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
what eye thynk: So, when Romney wanted to be a U.S. Senator from historically liberal Massachusetts, he was for equal rights for the LGTB community. By the time he became governor of Massachusetts, and no longer needed their support, he was against it.
Now, he would like to change our U.S. Constitution to reflect his current prejudices, turning every gay, lesbian, transgender and bi-sexual American into a second class citizen. But, stick around, this is only July. Mitt has plenty of time to find another view to embrace on this issue.
If God has a sense of humor, we’ll find out that Sheldon Adelson is secretly gay and wants to marry one of the Koch brothers. Then we can all watch Mitt spin in circles as he tries to retain access to all that Adelson-Koch money while attempting to convince the far right that he is still one of them.
FLIP --“Look at my record. I’ve been best-buds with members of the Log Cabin Club since 1994!”
FLOP -- “But I privately pitied them and only became friendly so I could help them pray away the gay!”
FLIP -- “Look at my record again. I even asked Richard Grenell, an openly gay man, to be my campaign advisor on foreign affairs. No, wait, my conservative patrons didn’t like him and he was forced to quit before he really started. Sorry. Forget that one. My bad.”
FLOP --“You see, I cleansed my campaign of all that nasty gay influence when you asked me to! (And I want you to know that Sheldon is, in reality, a woman. He has just been pretending to be a man because of a secret Russian plot to kidnap him and turn him into a prostitute at one of his own Macau casinos. So, you see, that Adelson-Koch marriage is really okay. And, besides, they‘re both really rich, and the rich are the BEST!)”
If God were fair, He would guarantee that every family included at least one gay member so all straight people could see that being gay is just a different way of being human. Unfortunately, God, and life, aren't fair. It is up to us to ensure that equality is equal. Stopping Mitt is one way to continue the fight.
Monday, July 9, 2012
July 9 - Monday Quote
All the Republicans who continue to insist that Ronald Reagan was the be-all and end-all of conservative politics, should remember that he also stood for fairness in our tax laws and that being wealthy shouldn't exempt you from paying your fair share.
monday quote: We are going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary and that’s crazy. It’s time we stopped it. (Ronald Reagan, President, 1911-2004)
monday quote: We are going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary and that’s crazy. It’s time we stopped it. (Ronald Reagan, President, 1911-2004)
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Congress - Are We Getting Our Money's Worth?
Next week is the twenty-fifth week of 2012 and Congress will be adjourning for their fifth week-long recess. In preparation for their week off, the House of Representatives rushed to pass some new legislation designed to enhance their conservative credentials but destined to die on the congressional scrap heap.
what eye thynk: Why do these people even bother coming to work? Or better yet, why do we bother to pay them? Maybe we should begin to consider our congressmen to be piece workers--pass a piece of legislation that can get through both houses of Congress and that the President will sign and we’ll cut you a paycheck. I’d be willing to bet we’d see them working more than 20% of the time. They would most certainly have to stop wasting time passing bills that are designed only to be eye-candy for the far right. They may even learn to listen to other opinions and (gasp!) rediscover the art of compromise!
The latest round of silliness includes a Republican sponsored bill that prohibits the creation of any new federal regulations until unemployment goes below 6 percent. This is just a skewed way of saying “We don’t care about worker safety, the environment, job equality or anything that may impede the corporate double-time march to godhood“. (It would, however, be interesting to see how that no-new-regulations idea could be applied to all those abortion road-blocks of which the Republicans are so proud.)
Last Thursday, the Republican controlled House voted to repeal an important part of the Affordable Care Act by voting to remove the requirement that companies selling more than $5M in medical devices pay a higher tax on their earnings. This tax money was intended to subsidize health insurance for those who fall into the lowest income brackets. The House bill will not even be taken up by the Senate, the fact of which the Republicans were well aware even as they preened for their conservative homeys.
At the same time, the House refuses to consider any legitimate or useful legislation like the transportation bill which is designed to help the economy by creating millions of new jobs while rebuilding our aging infrastructure. But NOT helping the economy is their real purpose here. The Republican party has completely lost sight of reason. They have become so focused on the goal of defeating the Democrats that they have abandoned any semblance of governing--and governing is their job, it is what we, as citizens pay them to do.
How long to you think Romney would have employed a private sector worker he hired to paint a yellow line down the middle of the highway if that worker instead spent all his time pulling weeds along the berm? But this is exactly what the Republican controlled House is doing while conservatives rain kudos down on their congressional heads, never noticing that the highway, with its missing center line has become a million car pile-up.
I’m sick of being treated like a dandelion. It is time to hire a Congress that will keep their hands on the paint brush and off the Round-Up. Is anyone with me?
what eye thynk: Why do these people even bother coming to work? Or better yet, why do we bother to pay them? Maybe we should begin to consider our congressmen to be piece workers--pass a piece of legislation that can get through both houses of Congress and that the President will sign and we’ll cut you a paycheck. I’d be willing to bet we’d see them working more than 20% of the time. They would most certainly have to stop wasting time passing bills that are designed only to be eye-candy for the far right. They may even learn to listen to other opinions and (gasp!) rediscover the art of compromise!
The latest round of silliness includes a Republican sponsored bill that prohibits the creation of any new federal regulations until unemployment goes below 6 percent. This is just a skewed way of saying “We don’t care about worker safety, the environment, job equality or anything that may impede the corporate double-time march to godhood“. (It would, however, be interesting to see how that no-new-regulations idea could be applied to all those abortion road-blocks of which the Republicans are so proud.)
Last Thursday, the Republican controlled House voted to repeal an important part of the Affordable Care Act by voting to remove the requirement that companies selling more than $5M in medical devices pay a higher tax on their earnings. This tax money was intended to subsidize health insurance for those who fall into the lowest income brackets. The House bill will not even be taken up by the Senate, the fact of which the Republicans were well aware even as they preened for their conservative homeys.
At the same time, the House refuses to consider any legitimate or useful legislation like the transportation bill which is designed to help the economy by creating millions of new jobs while rebuilding our aging infrastructure. But NOT helping the economy is their real purpose here. The Republican party has completely lost sight of reason. They have become so focused on the goal of defeating the Democrats that they have abandoned any semblance of governing--and governing is their job, it is what we, as citizens pay them to do.
How long to you think Romney would have employed a private sector worker he hired to paint a yellow line down the middle of the highway if that worker instead spent all his time pulling weeds along the berm? But this is exactly what the Republican controlled House is doing while conservatives rain kudos down on their congressional heads, never noticing that the highway, with its missing center line has become a million car pile-up.
I’m sick of being treated like a dandelion. It is time to hire a Congress that will keep their hands on the paint brush and off the Round-Up. Is anyone with me?
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Mitt Romney - The Wimp Factor, Part 1
In April, Romney appointed Richard Grenell to act as his campaign advisor on foreign affairs. On May 1, after being told that he could listen but not speak during a conference call discussion of foreign policy, (a conference call that he had organized), Mr. Grenell resigned.
what eye thynk: Despite Mr. Grenell’s shaky history of tactless postings on his Twitter account, (I have to admit I thought his tweet about Callista’s hair “snapping on” was pretty funny), he certainly held the right credentials to become Mr. Romney’s foreign policy advisor having served as Director of Communications for four ambassadors to the U.N. under George W.
So why did he quit? Well, Frank VanderSloot, national finance co-chair of the Romney campaign, didn’t like him and Bryan Fischer, ringleader of the American Family Association liked him even less.
(Incidentally, Mr. VanderSloot is also one of the biggest donors to Romney’s super PAC “Restore Our Future”. What happened to all those safeguards that the Supreme Court said were in place to keep campaigns and super PACs separate?)
Mr. VanderSloot has a long record of anti-gay sentiment. In 1999 he underwrote an Iowa anti-gay billboard campaign in an attempt to stop a public television broadcast of a documentary dealing with the way teachers handled homosexual issues in the classroom. Billboards reading “Should public television promote the homosexual lifestyle to your children?” appeared all over the state. At the time, Mr. VanderSloot was quoted as saying” Why is public TV, paid for by our tax dollars, going to show this to our families, our children?” (Note to Mr. V: Gay people pay taxes too.)
Once Mr. Grenell was gone, it didn’t take long for the conservative far right to see their opportunity to steer Romney, calling him “maneuverable”, Bryan Fischer wrote: “Gov. Romney is a politician rather than a statesman. While he will not do the right thing out of political conviction, he will do the right thing out of political convenience. Since Gov. Romney will do the right thing when it is politically expedient, it's our job to make it politically expedient for him to do the right thing on as many issues as possible. Let's get cracking.”.
A Romney spokesman tried to smooth over the issue by saying that Mr. Grenell quit for “his own personal reasons”, but not before another Republican campaign advisor was quoted as saying “It’s not that the campaign cared whether Ric Grenell was gay. They believed this was a non issue. But they didn’t want to confront the religious right”.
As President, you will have to confront someone some time, Mr. Romney. If you can’t stand up now, I don’t see much hope for you as a leader. The presidency of the United States of America is no place for a wimp.
what eye thynk: Despite Mr. Grenell’s shaky history of tactless postings on his Twitter account, (I have to admit I thought his tweet about Callista’s hair “snapping on” was pretty funny), he certainly held the right credentials to become Mr. Romney’s foreign policy advisor having served as Director of Communications for four ambassadors to the U.N. under George W.
So why did he quit? Well, Frank VanderSloot, national finance co-chair of the Romney campaign, didn’t like him and Bryan Fischer, ringleader of the American Family Association liked him even less.
(Incidentally, Mr. VanderSloot is also one of the biggest donors to Romney’s super PAC “Restore Our Future”. What happened to all those safeguards that the Supreme Court said were in place to keep campaigns and super PACs separate?)
Mr. VanderSloot has a long record of anti-gay sentiment. In 1999 he underwrote an Iowa anti-gay billboard campaign in an attempt to stop a public television broadcast of a documentary dealing with the way teachers handled homosexual issues in the classroom. Billboards reading “Should public television promote the homosexual lifestyle to your children?” appeared all over the state. At the time, Mr. VanderSloot was quoted as saying” Why is public TV, paid for by our tax dollars, going to show this to our families, our children?” (Note to Mr. V: Gay people pay taxes too.)
Once Mr. Grenell was gone, it didn’t take long for the conservative far right to see their opportunity to steer Romney, calling him “maneuverable”, Bryan Fischer wrote: “Gov. Romney is a politician rather than a statesman. While he will not do the right thing out of political conviction, he will do the right thing out of political convenience. Since Gov. Romney will do the right thing when it is politically expedient, it's our job to make it politically expedient for him to do the right thing on as many issues as possible. Let's get cracking.”.
A Romney spokesman tried to smooth over the issue by saying that Mr. Grenell quit for “his own personal reasons”, but not before another Republican campaign advisor was quoted as saying “It’s not that the campaign cared whether Ric Grenell was gay. They believed this was a non issue. But they didn’t want to confront the religious right”.
As President, you will have to confront someone some time, Mr. Romney. If you can’t stand up now, I don’t see much hope for you as a leader. The presidency of the United States of America is no place for a wimp.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Viagra vs. The Pill
Political noise: news article after news article and conservative pundit after conservative politician ranting about the evils of birth control.
what eye thynk: Why is it that it's okay for health insurers to pay for Viagra but not okay for those same health insurers to pay for birth control pills? What makes "their" pill a medical necessity and "my" pill evil? Beyond stopping pregnancy, birth control pills are used to treat other female problems. What else does Viagra do?
Unfair as the whole issue is, sometimes you just gotta laugh. Can't you just see a Monty Python world where women live in abstinence and Viagra amped men run around looking for relief? It would serve them right!
what eye thynk: Why is it that it's okay for health insurers to pay for Viagra but not okay for those same health insurers to pay for birth control pills? What makes "their" pill a medical necessity and "my" pill evil? Beyond stopping pregnancy, birth control pills are used to treat other female problems. What else does Viagra do?
Unfair as the whole issue is, sometimes you just gotta laugh. Can't you just see a Monty Python world where women live in abstinence and Viagra amped men run around looking for relief? It would serve them right!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)