OBOF SS & MORE PART 20

WELCOME TO OPINIONS  BASED  ON FACTS (OBOF)

Name	Published
OVERVIEW	Dec. 28, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 1	Dec. 30, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 2	Jan. 10, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 3	Jan. 17, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 4	Jan. 24, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 5	Jan. 31, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 6	Feb. 07, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 7	Feb. 14, 2011
SPECIAL ISSUE	Feb. 18, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 8	Feb. 21, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 9	Mar. 01, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 10	Mar. 07, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1	Mar. 14, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1A	Mar. 21, 2011
SS & MORE PART 2	Mar. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 3	Mar. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 4	Apr. 04, 2011
SS & MORE PART 5	Apr. 11, 2011
SS & MORE PART 6	Apr. 18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7	Apr. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7A	Apr. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 8	May 02, 2011
SS & MORE PART 9	May 09, 2011
SS & MORE PART 10	May 16, 2011
SS & MORE PART 11	May 24, 2011
SS & MORE PART 12	Jun. 06, 2011
SS & MORE PART 13	Jun. 20, 2011
SS & MORE PART 14	JULY 05,2011
SS & MORE PART 14A	JULY 18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 15	JULY 19, 2011
SS & MORE PART 16	AUG. 03, 2011
SS & MORE PART 17	AUG. 15, 2011
SS & MORE PART 18	Aug.  29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 19	Sept. 12, 2011
SS & MORE PART 20	Sept. 26, 2011

SOCIAL SECURITY & MORE PART 20

IN  THIS  ISSUE

1.  What a way to run a railroad!

2.  What is happening between the Republicans in Congress and                  the President?

3.  What does "neighborly" mean?

4.  The President's Jobs Bill.

5.  A parting thought.

~~~

"VOTE  AN  EDUCATED  VOTE"

~~~

WHAT 

A  WAY

  TO  RUN  A  RAILROAD!

I am originally from the Mid-west, and when we had a messed up operation we use to say "What a way to run a railroad."  This certainly applies now to the Republican ran House of Representatives. 

On September 15th, Speaker John Boehner gave a speech to the Economic Club of Washington, DC, in which he said "If we want to create a better environment for job creation, politicians of all stripes can leave the, 'my way or the highway' philosophy behind."  Sounds great, and like it is a signal that they, the Republicans, want to work in a different atmosphere with the Administration.  Whoops! not so fast.  Actions speak louder than words.

It's a normal practice, in Washington, to use Continuing Resolutions (CR) to provide finances for the Government to continue operation when agreement of a final budget has not been reached.  If one is not passed by both Chambers of Congress by September 30th, there, once again, is the likelihood of a Government shut down.

Early last week the House of Representatives failed to pass the needed CR.  After some minor changes they passed it late Friday.  HOWEVER, there are some major differences between what they passed and what the Senate will pass, mainly, that the CR did not provide enough money for the Disaster Relief Fund.  Speaker Boehner, was told this by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, before the House passed the CR.

Normally, the Senate would pass what they felt was needed and then there would be a conference between members of both Chamber of Congress to reconcile the differences and then both Chambers would pass the CR.

BUT NOT THIS TIME.  Speaker Boehner said, in essences, that this time the House Republicans are going home for a scheduled recess, so take this bill or let the Government shut down.  Sound familiar?  So much for leaving the 'my way or the highway' behind us.  Ezra Klein, of the Washington Post, says this is called "Jamming."  You hand the other chamber a must-pass bill and you walk from the table.

BUT NOT THIS TIME, MAYBE.  If President Obama will continue his firm approach, and I sure hope he does, he may just let the Republicans shut the Government down.  The Republicans talk about all the threats by the Democrats, but maybe this time the President will call their bluff.  If he does, I'll bet a dime, that's all I could spare, that the Republicans will be back in Washington pronto.

~~~

WHAT  IS  HAPPENING  BETWEEN  THE  REPUBLICANS  IN  CONGRESS  AND  THE  PRESIDENT?

 

The past two weeks have been frustrating to me.  There has been so much said that just, simply, doesn't make any sense.  I started to try to keep track of it, but it just got too ridiculous to even think about putting it in this posting.

I did get to thinking about, overall, what has happened, since Mr. Obama became President?  I believe we have seen about three different Obama's.  Why is that and who are they?  

I believe that when he came into office, he truly thought that he had a chance to change Washington.  However, in a very short time, he found out that he wasn't going to be able to do some of what he had planned.  So, what did he do?

He tried to be a nice guy and work with the Congress in any way possible.  He had a Democratic Congress in the beginning, but he also, had a group of Republicans, that had an agenda, that he had not counted on.  Their agenda was to do anything that would defeat and tear down the President.  They were very open about it.  Even the Minority Leader in the Senate, Mr. McConnell, said that their agenda was to see to it that President Obama was a one term President. 

Even though the Democrats held the majority, in both Chambers of Congress, the Republicans were able to stop almost everything he tried to get done, thru procedural rules in the Senate.  The only exception was the Affordable Care Act.

Then came 2010 and the Republicans took over the House of Representatives.  Then came budgets and the debt ceiling. 

The Republican agenda is now in full swing.  Now we see Obama number two.  He tried to compromise, but that didn't work.  He became timid, it seemed, and I am sure you all know how that period went without my detailing it. 

Now he has tried most everything, except one.  He needed to be the original Obama.  The one that campaigned and won the election. 

All this time, the Republican agenda was working.  They would not pass anything, he wanted to get done.  He tried to get jobs going and make the economy better. They were going to beat him no matter what.

NOW I ASK WHY?  WHY HAVE THEY ADOPTED THIS AGENDA? HE HADN'T DONE ANYTHING TO REPUBLICANS, PERSONALLY.  WHY WERE THEY SO DETERMINED, RIGHT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, TO MAKE HIM LOOK BAD AND DEFEAT HIM IN ANY WAY THEY COULD, EVEN OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WAS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY.  WHY!!?

There are no FACTS that can answer that question.  My OPINION IS NOT BASED ON FACTS.  I want to be very clear about that.  This is just my personal opinion.  You may agree or disagree, but I feel compelled to call it as I see it.  I would like to hear from you either way.   

I can only find two reason.  He is a Democrat and he is a Black Democrat. They just are not going to let a Black Democrat President succeed in anything they can stop.  I have come to that conclusion because, for one reason, they don't make any personal attacks on him as they did Clinton.  As much as I hate to say it, I think being a BLACK Democrat President is the primary reason.  It's hard to  believe, that in this time in the history of our country, there is still so much plain hatred toward blacks.  BUT, I guess I am going to have to admit, that it appears, that there is no other reason to not work with him on anything. 

I am really sorry to say, that I believe Racism, to some degree, is alive and well in the Congress of the United States.

SO, now we see the third Obama and it's about time.  He took a vacation and many even criticized him for that.  I showed in a recent posting that he hadn't taken nearly as much vacation, as Geo. W., so that kind of got back at that criticism.

Anyway, when he came back he had decided to try the one thing he hadn't done.  Be direct, firm and engaging.  He sent a JOBS BILL to Congress and he took it to the people.  Maybe, just maybe he has now found the way he has to work with this Congress.  HE IS NOW LEADING AND IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW HE IS GOING TO THE PEOPLE.  LET'S ALL HOPE HE STICKS TO HIS NEW APPROACH.

~~~

WHAT  DOES  BEING  "NEIGHBORLY"  MEAN?

The portion of the article that I have listed below sparked some concern in me.  The article is short and leads into some thoughts that I had about it.  After you read it, and if you are so inclined, I would like to hear from you, in the comments section, as to your thoughts on the subject.

Eugene Robinson, Columnist

__________________________

NATIONOFCHANGE  /  OP - ED

published: Sunday, 18 September 2011

We heard plenty of con­tra­dic­tions, dis­tor­tions and un­truths at the Re­pub­li­can can­di­dates’ Tea Party de­bate, but we heard shock­ingly lit­tle com­pas­sion — and al­most no ac­knowl­edge­ment that po­lit­i­cal and eco­nomic pol­icy choices have a moral di­men­sion.

The low­est point of the evening — and per­haps of the po­lit­i­cal sea­son — came when mod­er­a­tor Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul a hy­po­thet­i­cal ques­tion about a young man who elects not to pur­chase health in­sur­ance. The man has a med­ical cri­sis, goes into a coma and needs ex­pen­sive care. “Who pays?” Blitzer asked.

“That’s what free­dom is all about, tak­ing your own risks,” Paul an­swered. “This whole idea that you have to pre­pare and take care of every­body. . . .”

Blitzer in­ter­rupted: “But Con­gress­man, are you say­ing that so­ci­ety should just let him die?”

Paul, a physi­cian, went on to say that, no, the hy­po­thet­i­cal co­matose man should not be al­lowed to die. But in Paul’s vi­sion of Amer­ica, “our neigh­bors, our friends, our churches” would choose to as­sume the man’s care — with gov­ern­ment bear­ing no re­spon­si­bil­ity and play­ing no role."

Blitzer turned to Michele Bach­mann, whose pop­u­lar­ity with evan­gel­i­cal Chris­t­ian vot­ers stems, at least in part, from her own pro­fessed born-again faith. Asked what she would do about the man in the coma, Bach­mann ig­nored the ques­tion and launched into a canned ex­pla­na­tion of why she wants to re­peal Pres­i­dent Obama’s Af­ford­able Care Act.

At this point you may get the idea that the following paragraph is Bachmann answer.  It is not.  It is Mr. Robinson's commentary.

Ac­cord­ing to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus told the Phar­isees that God com­mands us to “love thy neigh­bor as thy­self.” There is no as­ter­isk mak­ing this oblig­a­tion null and void if cir­cum­stances re­quire its ful­fill­ment via gov­ern­ment.

NOW, my question is, WHO IS OUR NEIGHBOR?  Is it the people that live on each side of us?  Is it our neighborhood, whatever that is?  Is it our community?  Is it the people on the east coast that are hit by a hurricane?  Maybe it goes so far as, to include places like Israel that we certainly help a lot and other similar places?

You see, the definition of "neighbor" is all important and I am not sure just what the answer is that would be definitive.  I suppose the definition may change from time to time depending on the circumstances and what you might be able to do about it. 

In the case of the comatose man, referred to above, it sounds as though he is in a situation that is going to require a great deal of expense.  In most probability his next door neighbor would not be in a position to pay for his care.  I would doubt that any church would have the kind of resources that would be required. 

You know, this makes me ask "Who is our Government?  Isn't the Government the people in a Democracy?  Our Government represents the people and the people are the ones that put those who are in charge of our Government in that position.    Doesn't that make us all neighbors, in a sense?

When our Government, representing all of us, provides some relief to those in a disaster area, isn't that being neighborly?  And when people donate to the Red Cross and directly to services in a disaster area, isn't that being neighborly?

So you see, when, at least, a majority of our Government says that they want to provide some relief to those who can't afford all their medical needs, isn't that being neighborly?  I kind'a think it does.

I guess being neighborly depends on so many things at any given time and how much God has been able to put in us.

~~~

THE  PRESIDENT'S  JOBS  BILL.

    (The format below is not the way I set it up.  The blog does this when I transfer it from Word.  I can't seem to correct it.  I think you can still read it.)

The President completed the detail of his Jobs Bill and presented it in an address in the Rose Garden of the White House on Wednesday September 21st.  It was a package of tax increases and cuts from projected spending totaling nearly $ 3.1 trillion over 10 years.

The plan calls for:

          1.  Tax increases of $1.5 trillion over 10 years starting in                         2013 on incomes above $200,000.

          2.  Cuts of $580 billion in projected federal spending plus                      another $1 trillion savings from planned withdrawal of                        troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

          3.  A total of $3.1 trillion spending cuts over 10 years will                       be proposed to the Congressional Supercommittee,                          which is charged with finding $1.5 trillion in cuts.  His                         total cuts are greater than that in part to cover the                           one year $447 billion costs of the proposed jobs bill.

          4.  Closing loopholes for oil and gas companies.  Total: $40                                      billion.

          5.  Raising taxes on investment fund managers.  Total:     $18                        billion.

          6.  Raising taxes on owners of corporate jets.  Total: $3 billion.

          7.  Cuts of $248 billion from spending on Medicare (not                            cutting benefits).

          8.  Cuts of $72 billion from Medicaid, again not cutting                                         benefits.

          9.  The plan also included principles for tax reform - -                         including one he calls the "Buffet rule                                                         after statements previously made by Mr. Warren Buffet,  which were reported in posting #19.

         

          10. No changes at all in Social Security.

As is said, that is the high points in a nutshell. 

~~~

 A  PARTING  THOUGHT.

It's exciting to get old, with a body that still functions, though these days my spirit is doing most of the work.  The early and middle experiences of your life take on a greater reality with age, and you gain an overview.  by Barbara Morgan, at age 83

~~~

If God is willing and the creek don't rise I'll talk with you again on October 10.  God bless you all.

Floyd

no asterisk making this obligation null and void if circumstances require its fulfill