Who Watched Barack's Speech last night?

Pelosi WAS funny
I didn't watch the speech but I saw the repeat of that on the news..
And I don't think the illegal immigrants thing is a lie- they won't be covered.

It's moments like these that get folks thinking and keeps the topic on the tips of everyone's tongues. I didn't watch but that sure sounds like a hoot!
The reason I don't watch his blahblahblah is because I know I'll hear about it the next day or soon enough

Nope. Didn't watch it. I'm suffering from Obama fatigue. If I see his face, I automatically turn the channel. My remote is wearing out. I agree with c1atsite, if it is important I'll hear about it.

Did hear about the outburst though. How funny!

Actually, all the fact-checking places are saying this is a half-truth, at least as the bills are currently written. Illegals won't be eligible for benefits that are government paid, but there's nothing in the bill to require proof of citizenship to buy insurance through normal channels or even to buy into the public option, if there is one.

But the Congressman was wrong to have an outburst like that, although the Democrats did something similar to Bush, only more of them did it at one time, and less distinctly. There are rules of decorum to keep the Congress from descending into chaos and fistfights.

I heard it last night on ABC at the 7 o clock news that it was fact checked and it was NOT a lie...maybe they're wrong though- I haven't been following this stuff at all lately.

That was my favorite part, too! She would have frightened the hell out of me were I there. Since I was safe on my couch I burst out laughing. That's the sort of stuff that makes me say that politics is my favorite sport!

So strange but I agree wit Rush Limbaugh on this one. The taxing junk food is just another way to take away personal freedoms..What you do to your own body should not be something the government should either punish or reward. This is why I feel like those people who are anti abortion are so terribly wrong because they are trying to take away the right of a woman over her own body. I don't mean to get sidetracked again but i'm just saying it's the same type of limitation: I just feel like NO ONE should have rights over what people do to their own body if it isn't harming anyone else..and taxing it is an indirect way of doing that. I dunno, I guess even this right ends somewhere though, like how we limit drug use...I am sure before there were laws against drugs people felt the same way as I do now about putting laws that punish smokers and obese people...But to me it's just a boundary we shouldn't cross..

But there's a basic difference between car insurance and health insurance. The car insurance you are required to carry is to make sure you are able to pay for damage you do to others. Health insurance is to be able to pay for damage you may do to yourself. You can argue that health insurance is just to keep you from being a burden on society. In reality, the big value of requiring everyone to have health insurance is that it requires those who normally don't buy it to be included in the pool, which is important for actuarial accuracy.

And, in point of fact, I don't support high taxes on cigarettes or alcohol. That type of tax is exactly the kind of tax that caused the colonies to rebel against the crown.

Exactly....the tax on cigarettes was there before cigarettes were considered bad for you anyway. It has been around since the discovery of the new world and is not only in the US..
Well I strongly disagree with taxing tobacco even more because it's unhealthy to smoke...I absolutely hate how the government is taking away more and more freedoms and relying on statistics and the scientific method, which are completely subjective IMO, that predict that it will cost them more in the long run. It's totally unjust IMO.


I'm with you on this, I think it's a great idea.

Not only a burden to society but also makes our society seem dysfunctional- if someone gets diagnosed with cancer and can't afford treatment- that speaks ill for our entire society...Just like if someone gets hit by a drunk driver and the drunk driver doesn't have insurance to cover the person who did nothing wrong- it just shows that we have a dysfunction in society...So that's why I think you CAN treat it the same as car insurance.

Just one question...has anyone posted the speech on YouTube or anywhere? I've looked and the only thing I can find is on Obama.net or something like that, and they don't show the "You LIE" part. I just really want to see Pelosi's face!

Okay- I see what you are saying we need to pay for it. But it has to be distributed so that each person pays an equal amount- not trying to tax one group of people and then not another. You know what that means- this creates an elitist hierarchical society where only the rich can afford to smoke or be fat. It isn't just and it isn't equal. This is the biggest problem I have with these laws ...the wealthy can always circumvent them by paying extra and the poor are the ones who suffer. It creates too much inequality.

And the reason why I'm okay with making it mandatory to have insurance for all is the very same reason- it is something that effects everyone equally not just one group over another...

I'm telling you it's hysterical! All this other chat in this thread is well and good but for me discussing Pelosi's face is where it's at! I swear it's moments like this that make me appreciate politics, and there are so few moments like this!

I agree with Utopia on this one. If they want to raise the sales tax on everything, that's one thing but to pick and choose what gets taxed heavily, especially when it comes to food, is not right.

Look at it this way. What if PETA gets in the mix and all of a sudden taxes on cat food and kitty litter goes sky high. It is our personal choice to have pets and some people would say it was unneccesary and we can do without owning them. Would that be fair to cat lovers? (Extreme example, I know but I wouldn't be surprised it PETA actually did try something like this.)

I don't think the government has a right to decide what is healthy and what isn't for me...that is MY decision.

On the other hand, if they're the main payer and regulator for health care, I can see how it's their business...which is the base reason I have a problem with nationalizing health care. I just object to a system where I freely have the right to choose an abortion but not a cheeseburger (or a high deductible if I don't want to get fined by the IRS).

I see your point, but who is going to decide which foods are unhealthy and get the additional taxes put on them? What may be unhealthy for one person may be a necessity for another in their diet. For instance, one of my friends is diabetic and always has candy in her purse for when her sugar drops too low (juvenile diabetes). Candy, obviously, is not a necessity for most people's diet and unhealthy for most, but it could save her life. For families that can only afford hot dogs and they get taxed outrageously, what are they going to eat if they can't afford anything else?

I honestly don't have a problem with the raised taxes on cigarettes, and I'm a smoker. I don't LIKE higher taxes on them, but I realize that smoking is my choice and I don't NEED them. People NEED to eat and diets vary. I don't trust the government enough to make the decision of what is healthy for me.

I splurge about twice a year on steamed crabs (my weakness!), I would hate to see the day when I have to splurge on a bag of Doritos.

Since this has turned into a rant on the evils of unhealthy food I would like to put my two cents in.

I would have no problem if soda and greasy salty snacks were to be heavily taxed because I rarely eat that stuff anyway. I consider it garbage and it generally does not even come into my house. Not that I am to only eat super healthy food, but we try to keep it balanced. We grow some of our own, trade what we have with neighbors and buy from local farm stands.

I was appalled at the tactics however that I see being used by a local supermarket chain. You go in and make your purchase and the cashiers are now asking if you want to purchase their "X-treme value of the week." And what is this "X-treme value?" It's Doritoes, a rack of Pepsi, chocolate chip cookies, etc. all JUNK. To me this is corporate irresponsiblity, especially when you see these 300 lb + people waddling around the store. Like they need to be encouraged to buy more of this junk!

Another thing that annoys me (now that I know I have high blood pressure) is the amount of sodium in foods that don't need it. I got a shock when I started comparing nutrition labels, it's as if they think, the more salt, the better. I saw a statistic somwhere about how easy it would be to lower the overall high BP rate in the US (and thus also lower the risk of stroke) by getting food manufacturers to cut down on salt, monosodium glutamate etc that they dump into processed foods.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healt...52P65820090326

So tax it heavily as far as I am concerned or get on the bog food manufacturers to lighten up with the sugar and salt. Take a look at some of the trash food they market to children - I think it is reprehensible.

I heard a good tip recently about how to eat healthy: don't eat anything that your great-grandmother wouldn't have recognized, and do your grocery shopping around the outer edge of the grocery store where they have the "real food."

I agree that you have an obligation to take care of yourself. If you drink like a fish you should be aware that you are increasing your risk of liver damage. If you smoke heavily you are increasing your risk of lung cancer. If you live on junk food loaded with sugar and salt you are increasing your risk of getting diabetes and/or high blood pressure, increased risk of heart disease etc. I don't see why people who take unnecessary chances with their health get to have their ailments paid for by a communal risk pool anymore than someone who gets drunk and then gets behind the wheel of a car.

I understand what you're saying, but you're the one that hates the idea of someone telling us how to manage our health....and you're doing the exact opposite here. So, it's not ok for the government to tell us what doctor to go to or to manage our health care, but it's ok to tell us what is healthy and what is not? That doesn't make sense.

I read the article, but not EVERYONE that buys a bag of chips is obese. I'm sorry, I like my chips and dip every now and then. I don't think I should have to save up to buy it.

I understand what you're saying, but you're the one that hates the idea of someone telling us how to manage our health....and you're doing the exact opposite here. So, it's not ok for the government to tell us what doctor to go to or to manage our health care, but it's ok to tell us what is healthy and what is not? That doesn't make sense.

I read the article, but not EVERYONE that buys a bag of chips is obese. I'm sorry, I like my chips and dip every now and then. I don't think I should have to save up to buy it. Why should people who only buy them occasionally be penalized for people who buy them every day?

LOL, yeah, she might!

I agree with more tax for fast food restaurants, but not what we buy in grocery stores. But, that will probably put a lot of restaurants out of business and just add to the unemployement problem. It's a double edged sword. Plus, is the additional tax going to be put on salads too? They are very healthy so why the same tax as a bacon cheese burger? This is what I'm asking....who is going to decide this???? I'm still waiting for that answer.

I didn't make a stink about it but I did ask and found out it wasn't the manager's call. This came direct from corporate HQ because they have some kind of arrangement with Frito-Lay to push their products at the cash register (after they've gone through their "Do you have a ____ card?" "Would you like to donate to our cause?" routine). Now that Frito-Lay has teamed up with Microsoft to get into the arena of XBoxs.
http://www.fritolay.com/about-us/pre...-20090831.html
all I can say is I thought the Happy Meal was bad! It's hard to fight this kind of corporate muscle when they are intent on pushing games and junk food on you.

By the way those two rules came from John Tesh "Intelligence for your Life" so I do not want to take credit for coming up with them, just passing them on.

I can see a way to tax fast food chains; it would be similar to how the goverment forced automakers to market fuel efficient cars. Come up with a "fleet tax." Tax according to the average nutritional value of everything sold. If you sell some junk because there will always be people who insist on buying it, sell a lot more reasonable stuff to offset it. At the very least there should be severe restrictions on children's menus, because what the kids eat sets the tone for their entire lives. And with so many people taking their kids out to eat, it's a vicious cycle. The fast food places serve garbage to children, the kids love it and nag their parents to go out and eat it. The result?

http://calorielab.com/news/2009/03/1...food-teachers/

http://www.themedguru.com/articles/m...m-8617191.html

I don't see how the argument that taxing the huge corporations that are cleverly marketing this trash will result in unemployment should be taken seriously. What is more important, our nation's health, or a handful of minimum wage jobs flipping burgers?

And look at what McDonalds is now launching, a 1/3 lb burger. Nobody needs to be eating this, just look at the nutritonal values.
http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_co...mare-on-a-bun/