Political Processes - Can we talk?

[Frybabe]

Marj, I think Sweden is already sorry. I read a book, published in 2006, called While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within by Bruce Bawer. From the title you can get a pretty good idea of where this guy's politics lay. Mr. Bawer lived first in Amsterdam, then he moved to Oslo where he still lives. He is an ex-pat American. He describes the liberal policies there that allow, once an immigrant is accepted, them to bring in his whole family. Not only have they brought in their immediate families under this policy, but also extended family  members. Many send their children back home for schooling and to marry (thus bringing in a whole new set of relatives).

The European mindset at the time was that these groups would integrate into European society. For the most part, they have not. They continue to live in their own enclaves and asserting their own laws, at times ignoring the laws of their new country. Many continue to live on welfare and have never contributed to the state coffers. The huge influx of immigrants has strained the liberal welfare system of Sweden and Norway as well as other countries. Like I said, this book was published in 2006. Heaven knows what, if anything has changed to help alleviate the situation.

[Frybabe]

I just had a thought (dangerous). I wonder what differences there are in policies and treatment between refugees and immigrants who do not become citizens. How many refugees go home and how many sign on for immigrant status? Well, it is a huge subject. I am not sure I want to tackle researching that one.

BTW, I agree with you Marj, we don't need a huge headache of the magnitude seen in Europe. If we do take in refugees, then I hope the government has studied all that worked and didn't work in Europe over the past 40-50 years and proceeds to set up some reasonable checks against overloading our system.

[marjifay]

Thanks, FryBabe, I'll look for the book. I've heard similar things that these people do not want to integrate with the new country that accepted them and want their own laws. 

By the way, I was wrong that our Congress had agreed to attack Syria.  It might have been one of the Congressional committees.  Anyway, Congress is going to start arguing about it; not sure when the vote will occur.

Marj

[BarbStAubrey]

Latest I read is there are all sorts of rebel groups from all over the Middle East that have piled into Syria so that it is no longer a Syrian revolution - there is too much not being said from the White House and even the CIA when on the NewHour are not clear - the last in one go round says we are weighing the odds for Assad to have to negotiate - then the second round they soften it to simply punishing Assad - why in the world do they want again to open this to a major Arab conflict because from what I hear, like Assad or not the alternative is a free for all with Israel in the line of fire from this free for all.

[marjifay]

Does anyone read the Borowitz Report by Andy Borowitz in the New Yorker .  It's satire.  I think this is one of his best.  I've been so sick of the GOP's voting for the 40 plus time to defund Obamacare. 

From the New Yorker magazine:

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Saying that they needed to be in peak physical condition for their looming effort to defund Obamacare, over a hundred House Republicans lined up for their free annual physicals today.

The physicals, part of Congress’s government-subsidized health-care package, yielded good news for many of the House G.O.P., who learned that they were strong and healthy enough for the demanding task of defunding Obamacare.

“My blood pressure was lower than I thought it would be,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “That’s amazing, because it goes through the roof whenever I think about how Obamacare would destroy America.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia)—whose free annual physical included an examination of his heart, lungs, ears, eyes, throat, and blood—said that his doctor proclaimed him in perfect physical condition: “He said I should be able to live a long, healthy life and defund Obamacare for many years to come.”
 
Rep. Cantor added that he had lost a few pounds since last year’s free annual physical, as he headed to lunch before defunding food stamps.

[marjifay]

Does anyone read the Borowitz Report by Andy Borowitz in the New Yorker?  It's satire, and this is one of his best I think.  I'm so sick of the GOP voting for the 40th-plus time to defund Obamacare:

From the New Yorker magazine:

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Saying that they needed to be in peak physical condition for their looming effort to defund Obamacare, over a hundred House Republicans lined up for their free annual physicals today.

The physicals, part of Congress’s government-subsidized health-care package, yielded good news for many of the House G.O.P., who learned that they were strong and healthy enough for the demanding task of defunding Obamacare.

“My blood pressure was lower than I thought it would be,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “That’s amazing, because it goes through the roof whenever I think about how Obamacare would destroy America.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia)—whose free annual physical included an examination of his heart, lungs, ears, eyes, throat, and blood—said that his doctor proclaimed him in perfect physical condition: “He said I should be able to live a long, healthy life and defund Obamacare for many years to come.”

Rep. Cantor added that he had lost a few pounds since last year’s free annual physical, as he headed to lunch before defunding food stamps.

[maryz]

Hypocrisy is  terrible thing, isn't it.

[BarbStAubrey]

I think it required having a clue in order to be hypocritical. I wonder the last time they even visited the poor areas where their constitutes live much less have any home visits or even visit the classrooms in those schools where those attending are mostly the poor. Heck their hatred for this president is so great they do not even join him serving at the soup kitchens on Thanksgiving.

[mogamom]

For over 40 years I worked with the 'disadvantaged' - in the poor section of two cities and the poor rural section of two counties:  they ate better than I did, or at least could have.  They had better health care than I did (both physical and mental health), or at least they could have had it, and it was free.  I wonder how many liberals have actually visited the 'poor' people they are concerned about - or actually worked with them in attempting to increase their ability to be self-sufficient?  They are not ignorant, or unable to function in the modern world - most of them have a better awareness of what programs are available and how to approach/navigate them than the social workers who are attempting to advocate for them.

Big Business has been exempted, Big Unions have been exempted, and Congress itself has been exempted (from the law they passed!).  I do not want the government involved in my health care.  I do not want decisions about anyone's health care decided by one individual appointed by a president. 

I do not want my privacy taken away.  I do not want to pay for the unhealthy lifestyle choices of others (including sexual choices).  I do not want the Affordable Health Care Law - and I applaud any and all efforts to defund it (though it come at great personal and political cost, as all courageous acts do).  That is, by the way, a power given to the House of Representatives precisely for that purpose.

[mogamom]

P.S.  30 million Americans will still be left without health care and why are we funding the rebels in Syria?

[jane]

On the other hand, I'm already paying for those who don't have insurance when, at big costs, they use the Emergency Rooms for things that could have been handled much cheaper in a doc's office.  

The gov't is already involved in my health care.  I have had medicare for 7 years now and I've had 0 problems with it.  When I was working I had private insurance...and in the last years, ONE choice of plans.  They decided how long I could stay in the hospital after my cancer surgery, etc. and which doctors I could see.  I had to call and get advanced approval for the hospital trip for my mastectomy.  So, somebody somewhere has been deciding what I need and how much I can have.

 The insurance companies...both before and after Medicare...have decided what my drugs will cost me, and the pharmas have so many lobbists in DC to get those clowns to continue to allow them to ask any price they want for a drug in the US and to buy off the generic companies to keep the competition away. So...the gov't is also involved in the amounts I pay for drugs here.

As for privacy, I don't think that exists anywhere anymore.  The taxes we pay on our homes, how much we paid for it, etc.  is easily available online here in rural Iowa, and I've decided that there's nothing about me, from the drugs I take, to when I saw my doctor and for what is truly private anymore.  I think anybody who wanted to could easily get into those records via computer and/or the people who do have access to them all.


jane

[mogamom]

Those people here in New York on Medicaid still take ambulances to visit friends in the hospital-so it actually doesn't matter if they have insurance as far as for waste.  They still go to Emergency Rooms (as they will with any other kind of insurance too) for minor problems, because 1.  they don't know what is an important health concern (since schools only educate them as to social ills, rather than actual health care issues - including how to access the appropriate health care facility) and 2.  they don't want to wait for an appointment, or be held to a schedule.

My health records are not in a master computer - nor do I want them to be.  My health plan doesn't cover sex change operations or abortions - nor do I want them to.

I'm not saying there aren't problems with the health care system.  I am saying that the Affordable Health Care Act will not - indeed, cannot - sufficiently address them; nor is it affordable.

[nlhome]

I guess I tried to respond, mogamom, and lost it. So I'll try again - it's all in perspective.
The ACA is an attempt to open access to a lot more people. It's not meant to solve all the problems of our health care system. If all the time spent trying to remove the law had instead been spent trying to improve it, especially in coordinating care, education, and controlling costs, we'd all be better off. In the meantime, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage or charge huge premiums for people with pre-existing conditions. Because my circle of family and friends has several people who are basically uninsurable, I am pleased that the ACA is taking effect. I hope to help people sign up for it.

There are a lot of things that I don't like to have my money go to also, but my judgement should not control others' lives.

[BarbStAubrey]

We see life through the eyes that support our view of how we care for each other - First of all there was a 900K report done by the request of Congress that ended up showing 1% of the recipients of  foodstamps and all free services were misused - there are reporting agencies where misuse can be reported in every state and most large cities - there is NO fund federal or otherwise that enjoys less than a 1% misuse .

I am really curious - if they are eating well than how do they do it on a paycheck below 30K for a family of four - I really want to know - I could use that information - my income is not what is was and those tips would really help - since you worked with the poor do you have a list of the foods or their menus for a week -

I am scratching my head - what is their budget - you must know since you worked with the poor - what I see is almost half of their income goes to rent, utilities, transportation to and from their job.

I am alone and I no longer keep a garden other than the herbs that require no watering since the cost of water is out of sight and yet, for 6 months out of the year I cannot get my electric and water bill below $200 - in winter below $160 - then a family of 4 would have school or day care expenses or some care of an elderly at home person - there is transportation to and from whatever low paying job they have to earn the 30K - if they are in a city there may be public transportation however, if they live in the south good luck.

If they can keep their grocery shopping to $300 a month that is only $75 a week - that is over half their annual income - Even if they can find a rent for $600 plus utilities say they are very conservative and only use $150 a mo. for utilities that is about 9k a year for housing - there is still  transportation that is a minimum of $1.25 each way on the bus, some clothing/shoes - school supplies and cleaning supplies much less over the counter pharmacy like tampex, aspirin, and at least one annual cold that does not take a doctor's visit but over the counter meds etc.

Since the poor have no entertainment they end up using cable and that is costly - any local and federal help the locations to receive this help are spread all over and take hours just to get the help - plus, the area they live in has more crime that they are contently having to protect themselves and their kids - if they live where a car is a necessity they cannot afford insurance which affects the cost of anyone who is insured that needs to then use their insurance to pay for any accident -

The biggest aspect of being poor is no mental health which I have yet to meet anyone living in poverty that does not need something for depression

I prefer a town where I can go to bed feeling safe knowing that there is a base level of safety for everyone - no - I cannot stop those who abuse themselves and their family members by either the misuse of drugs or alcohol so that the family is in need in order for them to use however, I can see how living poor year after year drugs or alcohol can be thought of as an easy answer.

My daughter and her husband have fostered several teens who came from poverty - some they instills enough the teen goes on to college but some, their childhood abuse is too great and, or, one or both of their parents are in prison and with all their love and support they cannot afford the kind of therapy these kids need so they leave after they are either 18 or graduating from HS and become the next generation on the poverty or crime roles.

How well do you think those who have a problem with our funding foodstamps would support the few years of therapy most of those living in poverty require so they can do more with their lives?

When the jobs were plentiful the income level of the poor area of town rose - there was more hope among the kids and less crime on their way home from school and our cities spent less on policing to keep the poor areas in check - it is a cheaper tax burden and less use of, therefore cheaper property insurance premiums for those of us not poor to keep a feeling of security - having those in poverty with foodstamps is a way to do that.

Plus bottom line I do not want to see the 99% of poor left with no security because the 1% are and have misused the programs for help. As much as folks say they will help without the government over seeing the help - they do not - sure if there is a major catastrophe but even food banks do not keep up the community help we all provide based on our giving through our annual federal taxes.

[mogamom]

I would really like to see a copy of the report you are citing.  I have worked in health care (master's in nursing) my whole adult life, both public and private settings, and I just can't believe those figures - sorry.  A television special also showed an interview with a man in San Francisco who was picking up his welfare check which he planned to use for drugs - and said so.  But I know everyone receiving assistance is not doing that! Here, Catholic Charities has a sliding scale for mental health counseling that goes down to free.  But support for charitable giving (United Way) has been eroded by tax policies.

It is not my intention to annoy or offend anyone - just to perhaps express a different point of view than is mentioned here.  There are good, honest, caring people who do not agree with these policies; that does not make them bad or cold or heartless human beings.  Or even an 'enemy' of this president.

I can't answer all the issues you all have brought up.  But if you've read even a little of the Affordable Health Care Act I think you would agree that it is no solution to any of the ills you have described.  It will only exacerbate them.

And I can only speak to New York State.  Here car insurance is mandated.  But you can purchase that insurance from any insurance company.  Not so with health care - you can't buy across state lines.  That certainly is a result of lobbyists.  So the handful of insurance companies get together and set prices; effectively eliminating competition.

Nothing is free.   

[BarbStAubrey]

Insurance rates are calculated even if they are across the board similar premiums, they are still calculated based on risk - risk to the insurer - the factors for risk include things like the zip code where you live and the crime stats - and so if you live nearby a zip code with a high crime rate than your insurance is calculated at a greater risk for payout and that is how the premiums are averaged in for an across the board premium.

Even if there is a common rate for an entire state there are various premiums according to if you live in a rural area versus city and some cities have a higher premium than others - also, an insurance broker can sell policies from insurers that do not have an office in that state. For instance I have for years had my house insurance with Lloyd of London so that I can bypass the high rate this state requires for US insurers like All State or Prudential or any of the others - also there are several insurers that serve Veterans and that insurance is about a quarter of the cost of what most insurance costs.

Many states, including ours have mandatory auto insurance, however, many who do not have a car loan do not have insurance - the only way to check is to be stopped and the police have far more other crime to attend than stopping drivers to see if they are insured.  

I will try to find if the report is on line from my good friend who worked and then represented at the State Legislature the committee for Health and Human Services - she also assisted the Federal Health and Human Services Committee in Washington during the Clinton years when the services for the poor were being overhauled.

[mogamom]

Of course risk is a huge factor in calculating insurance and you do have some choice over incurring those risks.  I don't see how you will have any choice at the federal level.  I believe states should be allowed to take care of their own citizens, except for national defense, treaties, interstate commerce and the like.  That is what our framers had in mind.  And what we are experiencing is some of what they feared.

So, thanks, BarbStAubrey!  I'll read that with great interest.  Like I said, I'm a life-time resident of NY so I'm sure other states have other problems - and other solutions as well.

I have had friends in countries with government health and I know the problems they've had.  Nothing is free - and nothing is without problems.  But, I must say, I especially didn't like the 'process' employed to pass this bill; the fact that legislators didn't read it and 'won't know how it works until it's passed'; that almost half the citizens of the United States were disenfranchised; and I particularly didn't like what I read of it - which was most of the first draft put out.

[marjifay]

I think the Affordable Health Care Plan should have been a single payer plan.  I bet it will become so in a few years.

I thank President Lyndon B. Johnson every day for giving us Medicare.  I recently was hospitalized for two surgeries and with the cost, I would have lost my house to pay for them and the hospital without Medicare.  I guess that's what happened to people before we had Medicare.

Marj

[nlhome]

I doubt our people in Congress read every bill word for word before they vote.

The bill that created Medicare Part D was passed in similar questionable manner, and there was even a big brouhaha over AARP's role in that. The workings of Congress are not clean and orderly.

The choices in each state under the ACA exchanges are very different. People are not required to buy their insurance through the exchange. unless they want to apply for the premium subsidy. Companies that do not participate in the exchange, as well as companies that have policies in the exchange, can also offer plans, as long as the plans meet the requirements of the essential health benefits.

The issue of crossing state lines is something else entirely - perhaps as plans become more uniform, those restrictions can go away. Each state has its own rules for policies right now, and plans have to comply with those also. I believe that is something you mentioned, mogamom, that each state should be responsible for its own?

[marjifay]

Mogamom wrote, "I do not want my privacy taken away. I do not want to pay for the unhealthy lifestyle choices of others (including sexual choices). I do not want the Affordable Health Care Law - and I applaud any and all efforts to defund it (though it come at great personal and political cost, as all courageous acts do). That is, by the way, a power given to the House of Representatives precisely for that purpose. "

I'm curious.  Are you also opposed to Medicare and Social Security?

Marj

[Frybabe]

One of the local school districts here is in deep doo-doo. It is a little hard to believe that things are getting so bad in this school district and the excuses for it do not cut it with me. Some of the comments below the article are also enlightening or at least interesting.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/09/crisis_deepens_at_susquehanna.html#incart_m-rpt-2

[jane]

Yikes!  It does indeed sound as if it has "imploded."  That school board meeting ought to be a "doozy."

[mogamom]

Are you also opposed to Medicare and Social Security?

When did it become the job/business of the federal government to take care of my daily needs? 

The government isn't a Person with limitless resources; it's my next-door neighbor living on a fixed income, or the family across the street trying to raise and educate their children, or the couple newly empty-nestors trying to manage their resources so they can plan for their own retirement and the care of their elderly parents.

When did it become ok for me steal from these good people so that my life is more comfortable? easier? more convenient?  less scarey?  more fulfilling, relaxing, fun?  or less worisome?

[BarbStAubrey]

When we all cared about each other and realized that if someone falls through the cracks it affects us - remember what it was like in the 1930s before SS was enacted and immediately after, before a widow who did not have on record earned income from her husband's past - it was brutal with families being hauled into court and with their poverty wages having to meet the court's idea of living expenses for the elderly family member -

SS simply spread it out so that we know everyone who can no longer work or, because of the legal retirement age in many industries and can no longer earn as they did when they were young, and because of their forced savings, part of which comes from business, can have a roof over the heads, food and minimum health care - No adult receives SS who did not contribute and there is a ceiling on contributions from those making a good middle class and upper income salary.

Few of us could sleep knowing that across the street or on the next street there was someone our age who had no source of income and was now diminished and humiliated taking a handout - that is why EVERYBODY was included in the plan for SS so that there is no humiliation and EVERYBODY helps each other in this mostly Judo-Christian nation that believes in justice and dignity for all.

[Frybabe]

I'll be mighty interested in reading the fallout from the school board meeting been held as I type. (see my earlier post) Pix posted tonight show the huge auditorium packed with standing room in the back also filled. I think some of the administration comments about changing demographics causing the problems has upset more than a few people, not to mention hiring people who clearly were not properly vetted.

[marjifay]

Well said re Social Security, Barb.  

Marj.

[mogamom]

I truely appreciate these thoughtful responses to these most important issues.  Two thoughts come to my mind regarding the SS dicussion (which is really a discussion of a whole new 'entitlement' program: the Affordable Health Care Act):

President Barack Obama announced to the world that "the United States is no longer a Christian nation."

Several years ago I was talking to a friend about whether SS would be there when we would need it when his young adult son began a 'polite' tirade about how the baby-boomer generation was destroying his chances to ever own his own home and would make it imossible for his wife to stay home and raise their children since they would essentially be working to keep government programs in place - they would face incredibly high taxes.  He is an exceptionally polite and well-spoken young man; deserving to be heard.  I reminded him that the baby-boomers essentially carried two generations of individuals who hadn't paid into it their whole working life and I invited him to work hard to change the law. 


Other thoughts flood, but they need sorting and clarifying before sharing them.  I have lived long enough - and studied deeply and widely enough - to know that the 'cure' is often worse than the disease'.  We should always 'mind the ripples'.

[BarbStAubrey]

Interesting - I am a Christian and most of my friends and family are Christian believing and acting with a Christian love of others regardless where we live - My 19 year old grandson was in China all summer - a nation that is not Christian and yet, he continued to live by his Christian beliefs that expresses itself as kindness to his fellow man - one small experience - while playing basketball he, as the saying goes blew out his tennis shoes - with his limited Chinese he and a fellow student from China went into town to buy a new pair. It was Wednesday and the the store has a two for one sale on Wednesday's so he simply told the Chinese student to pick out a pair of shoes for himself - the young man, not Christian but still a loving young man picked out a pair of shoes that he sent to his sister who still lives back on the farm.

The Chinese culture takes care of each other in their way which is usually the job of the eldest son and we do it our way which is to spread out the care among the community that includes contribution to their care from those needing more help - we use a system that is also used in Auto Insurance, Flood Insurance, House Insurance even insuring our lenders who loan us the money to buy our houses, as well as, health insurance.

SS is a program that depends on everyone working contributing so that those who no longer can work are cared for and no eldest son is burdened with the care of the elders in his family, and industry can continue a system dependent upon some work exchange for a low salary so that those receiving the low salary during their working years are forced to save for the elderly years when typically they would use every penny they earn to take care of their young family.

Christian or not - even Muslims have an ethic of taking care of each other - so much so, that if you are traveling in a rural area with no hotels and need a place to stay, you are housed and fed as a gift - there are very few spiritually minded people who do not have a system to take care of each other so that if we are or are not a Christian nation our values still allow dignity for all.

However, not sure the quote we are no longer a Christian nation - it does not hold water

As of 2012, the majority of Americans (73–76%) identify themselves as Christians and about 15–20% have no religious affiliation. According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) (2008) 76% of the American adult population identified themselves as Christians, of which 25% identified themselves as Catholics (the largest single subgroup).

The same survey says that other religions (including, for example, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population, another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation, and 5.2% said they did not know, or they refused to reply. According to a 2012 survey by the Pew forum, 36 percent of Americans state that they attend services nearly every week or more.

Also, George Mason University of Law their Spring 2011 Law Review starts "The U.S. Supreme Court and constitutional courts around the world regularly use the term human dignity when deciding cases." It goes on to say there is not exact definition of the word dignity but common is the Judges attempt to balance individual rights, social policy and community values.

[jane]

President Barack Obama announced to the world that "the United States is no longer a Christian nation."

I did some looking on the internet, and apparently that "quote" was not reported correctly.  Words were left out.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-the-christian-nation-quote/

says:

Q: Did Obama say we "are no longer a Christian nation"?
A: He said we are no longer "just" a Christian nation, but a nation of many other faiths as well. A chain e-mail drops that key word and thus changes the meaning.
FULL QUESTION
Is this true? It is now traveling around the Internet.
U. S. 'no longer a Christian Nation'

As I was listening to a news program last night, I watched in horror as Barack Obama made the statement with pride…'we are no longer a Christian nation; we are now a Nation of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, . .' ? Click to expand/collapse the full text ?

 
FULL ANSWER
This is an example of how omitting a single word from an otherwise accurate quote can twist the meaning so completely as to reverse it. Here's what Obama meant to say, during his keynote address to a "Call to Renewal" conference sponsored by the progressive Christian magazine Sojourners two years ago:

Here’s the full quote:

“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation - at least not just,” Obama said. “We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation and a Buddhist nation and a Hindu nation and a nation of non-believers.”

In the same speech, Obama said, “Americans are a religious people,” noting that “90 percent of us believe in God” and cited a statistic that said 38% of Americans call themselves “committed Christians.”

“I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the role of faith in people’s lives, in the lives of the American people,” Obama said. “I think it’s time we joined a debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern pluralistic society.”


and from:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/31/anti-obama-mail-piece-we-are-no-longer-a-christian-nation/


Des Moines, Iowa (CNN) – The political arm of Focus on the Family, the Colorado-based social conservative organization founded by evangelical author and radio host James Dobson, is targeting Iowa voters with a mailing that quotes President Barack Obama as saying “we are no longer a Christian nation.”

Here’s the full quote:

“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation - at least not just,” Obama said. “We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation and a Buddhist nation and a Hindu nation and a nation of non-believers.”

In the same speech, Obama said, “Americans are a religious people,” noting that “90 percent of us believe in God” and cited a statistic that said 38% of Americans call themselves “committed Christians.”

“I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the role of faith in people’s lives, in the lives of the American people,” Obama said. “I think it’s time we joined a debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern pluralistic society.”


I hope we'll all be willing to investigate "quotes" that are sent out by various organizations and find out if what they are saying is the truth.  In this case, it appears the President's words were not reported accurately.

[mogamom]

Thank you, Jane.  What do you think he meant by that?  What should I say to my friend's son? And what of the president's actual actions?:

Obama Admin Tells Court: Hobby Lobby Must Obey HHS Mandate
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 11/1/12 5:02 PM•   
National      •     
•   
The Obama administration told a federal court today that the Christian business Hobby Lobby must obey the HHS mandate that forces religious companies to pay for drugs for women that may cause abortions.
The privately held retail chain with more than 500 arts and crafts stores in 41 states filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its HHS mandate. The company says it would face $1.3 million in fines on a daily basis starting in January if it fails to comply with the mandate, which requires religious employers to pay for or refer women for abortion-cause drugs that violate their conscience or religious beliefs.
 The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and the business says it is opposing the Health and Human Services “preventive services” mandate, which it says forces the Christian-owned-and-operated business to provide, without co-pay, the “morning after pill” and “week after pill” in their health insurance plan, or face crippling fines up to 1.3 million dollars per day.
“By being required to make a choice between sacrificing our faith or paying millions of dollars in fines, we essentially must choose which poison pill to swallow,” said David Green, Hobby Lobby CEO and founder. “We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate.”
But Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund, talked with National Review today about what the Obama administration told the court:
The administration’s arguments in this case are shocking. Here’s what they are saying: once someone starts a “secular” business, he categorically loses any right to run that business in accordance with his conscience. The business owner simply leaves her First Amendment rights at home when she goes to work at the business she built. Kosher butchers around the country must be shocked to find that they now run “secular” businesses. On this view of the world, even a seller of Bibles is “secular.” Hobby Lobby’s affiliate, Mardel, sells Bibles and other Christian-themed material, but because it makes a profit the government has now declared it “secular.”
The administration’s position here — while astonishing — is actually consistent with its overall view of the place of religion in civil society. After all, this is the administration who argued in the Hosanna-Tabor case last year in the Supreme Court that the religion clauses of the First Amendment offered no special protection to a church’s right to choose its ministers — a position that the Court rejected 9-0. This is the administration which has taken to referring to “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion” — suggesting that religious freedom consists in being free to engage in private rituals and prayers, but not in carrying your religious convictions into public life. And this is the administration who crafted a “religious employer” exemption to the HHS mandate so narrow that a Catholic charity does not qualify for conscience protection if it serves non-Catholic poor people....."


I wish I knew how to navigate around the internet like you, Jane, but the best I do is copy and paste to my desktop.  Oh, well…this article is quite long – I’m happy to post the rest of it if anyone is interested.  There are follow-up articles too; but the point is that this administration seems to be targeting Christian schools and businesses, just as the IRS targeted Tea Party members.  Is this right?

[nlhome]

 Our country is, as others pointed out, based on working together, not each carrying the load alone. In fact, when I think of things like Social Security, Medicare and the ACA, I think of "promote the general welfare" rather than "entitlement." These programs may need improving, but not the kind of change that diminishes their value. Your young friend might want to look beyond government to the way our economy is set up before he puts all the blame for his financial situation on the government - it's the corporations and the politicians who sell themselves to the corporations that need changing. None of the programs, including education for the young man's children (would you also call that an entitlement?), are destroying his opportunity to support his family or own a home, but rather are helping him.  However, if he ever  found himself unemployed - say his company were move jobs overseas - and with a pre-existing health condition, he might understand why many of us think the ACA is at least a big step in the right direction, just as, if he watched his parent's 401k dissolve by a falling stock market or bad choices, he might appreciate the safety net of Social Security.

[mogamom]

I believe our country was founded on the idea of each man being free to conduct his life in accordance with his own principles; in carrying out his personal duty to caring for his family and community.  That is, personally caring for the needs of others, not assigning the task to government.

[BarbStAubrey]

Oh my - yes - "once someone starts a "secular" business, he categorically loses any right to run that business in accordance with his conscience."

If a business is to make a profit from anyone and everyone than the laws of the land supersede - if we are running a private company in which only those who are members of our group, our religion or other interest, and all our products are made and sold by those in the group than we do not have the same laws as when we want to be profitable in the greater community -

There was a war called the Civil War that made that clear -

Since then, we have laws not only about how we cannot run a plantation in accordance with our own conscience and that followed a slew of laws like, we must serve lunch at "secular" counters to all the public rather than in accordance with our own conscience - A community must allow all children to attend "secular" schools and not restrict attendance or the quality of service based on our own conscience -

If we manufacture a product to sell to the "secular" public it must meet certain government standards rather than making and selling a product that meets our standards in accordance with our own conscience.

There are many Federal rules about the condition of Dairies, Slaughter methods that the laws include what religious methods are approved, Drugs approved for animals, where and how the use of Herbicides, informing "secular" consumers about the ingredients and the dangers in products like tobacco and drugs, etc.  

All " secular" companies must abide by OSHA - Companies are required to pay taxes, collect SS, abide by the EEOC (not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

If a school or hospital or any institution were open to only those who are a part of that institution and not hire anyone from the "secular" population using only their own internal institutional population to do the work, like the Quakers they could receive some exemptions just as the Jewish Faith can slaughter using different than legally approved methods  - However, an institution cannot have it both ways - an institution that hires from and provides services to the "secular" must abide by the state and nation's laws -

The US, church law is not first and 'secular' law is not church law - The US is not a Theocracy - We are not Iran or the Vatican City - both nations the head of state is selected by the religious hierarchy and church law is the law of the land  - In the US, our courts only use laws developed from our "secular" Constitution that does protect individuals, however, the law does not protect individuals or groups if they are breaking US laws.  

Our religious beliefs, our emotions related to our religious beliefs, may be strong and we can become enraged that others do not see these values as central to our society - It is hard but, like many personal views - we can continue to live what we value - however, within the law

All laws must square with the Constitution and changing a law will only happen when a greater percentage of the public can influence Congress to make laws that will honor a religious beliefs, just as many from other religions would prefer their values were more forthright in the laws of the nation.

It is difficult for many of us to go from a comforting, loving community with a common viewpoint and a common creed to be able to love a wider community with a variety of views that must be held together by laws for the common good of this wider community.

[jane]

I guess I'd suggest to your young friend, mogamom, that he look into who is not paying his/her fair share of taxes...ie., the large corporations who are making huge profits but are not paying taxes on those profits, the companies who have moved so many things off-shore so that they don't need to pay taxes, etc.  

This from 2011:

Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes: Sen. Bernie Sanders list

WASHINGTON—With federal income taxes due in a few weeks, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent allied with Democrats, on Sunday released a list of ten big profitable U.S. companies paying little or no taxes. Sanders wants to close the loopholes that make this tax avoidance legal. Some people call the income tax system with generous loopholes for big companies corporate welfare or corporate entitlements. As Congress returns to work this week–after yet another break–to negotiate over big budget cuts–with social safety net programs facing reductions–Sanders is pushing for corporations to pay more of a fair “share.”
WASHINGTON—With federal income taxes due in a few weeks, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent allied with Democrats, on Sunday released a list of ten big profitable U.S. companies paying little or no taxes. Sanders wants to close the loopholes that make this tax avoidance legal. Some people call the income tax system with generous loopholes for big companies corporate welfare or corporate entitlements. As Congress returns to work this week–after yet another break–to negotiate over big budget cuts–with social safety net programs facing reductions–Sanders is pushing for corporations to pay more of a fair “share.”

The Bernie Sanders Ten, per release….

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8 ) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

SOURCE:  http://voices.suntimes.com/early-and-often/sweet/ten-giant-us-companies-avoidin/


I worked my entire adult life; I had to pay into Social Security. I feel no guilt about accepting my money back at this point in my life.

jane

[mogamom]

No one is demanding that you commit murder.

[Frybabe]

I am not fond of people who misrepresent numbers.

So what if Boeing managed to acquire a $30 billion contract? That doesn't mean they made that much what with legitimate expenses and all. To more accurately portray Boeing along with the others, you need to know that Boeing's Net Profit last year was $3.9 billion. They paid income taxes on $5.91 billion in the amount of a little over $2 billion.

Again, Valero made $68 billion in Sales in the last three years? Okay. I am not going to do the research on this one, but keep in mind Sales does not include other sources of income nor does in include other expenses. Nor do I know if Mr. Sanders is using actually using Net Sales figures  (I am assuming so) or if he is using raw sales figures which do not include Sales Expenses.

Corporations, like people, are allowed to take all the tax breaks available to them.  The financials that a shareholder or other interested party sees using GAAP or non-GAAP accounting standards are not the same as reporting required by the IRS.

I don't think the accounting methods are at issue here, however; the subsidies and tax breaks are. These are also issues that involve us on a personal level. We have the opportunity, if we qualify, to take advantage of various tax credits too. The government likes to use them to channel our behavior in a subtle way. Subsidies and tax credits encourage people to do certain things, like the current credits on energy efficient products (of the government's choosing), encourage more people to go to college (grants and low cost loans). Extra taxes and fees can discourage people from smoking or driving fuel inefficient cars (or traveling). Take a look sometime at the break out of who gets what out the price of a gallon of gas. I'd classify Food Stamps as a subsidy.

[BarbStAubrey]

Looks like Ted Cruz is trying to pull a Wendy Davis but without the hundreds in the Gallery cheering him on or the thousands on the steps outside the Senate Chambers calling in support - not as much fun - I wonder if he was chastised with points taken off for presenting material that had nothing to do with the issue he is protesting. Looks like when you try to be a copy cat it just does not have the same impact...

[mogamom]

Not to mention the millions whose retirement income is dependent on the stocks of these companies turning a profit.

The majority of Americans do not want this law enacted; actually, they didn't want it signed into law in the first place but, as usual, they were ignored. Just as they are still being ignored calling for congress to cut spending.  And moral issues not-with-standing, who is going to pay for it - that 'spreading around' idea - spread it to whom?  We owe 17 trillion dollars (the last I looked).  Something like 20 million are unemployed, many of those with a job are part-time (unexpected consequences already?), and how many have quit looking (since they are conveniently left out of the count) or have found a way onto disability?

I remember Nelson Rockefeller - a past governor in our state.  I'm told (I'm not sure it's true, but it does make the point) he got so tired of being told how rich he was and how he was selfish (though he gave much) and should share his wealth with the good citizens of NY that he figured out how much every citizen would receive if he gave them his entire fortune; and from that day on he started handing out dimes to everyone he met.

[mogamom]

And I'm curious; on the moral issue before us, this question:

It's 1860 and you live in ? where owning slaves, it could be argued is 'for the common good', since our economy depends on it; are you going to turn in a run-away slave?  It's the law.

[BarbStAubrey]

aha now we have the age old dilemma - Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy - Aristotle says, doing moral philosophy is thinking as generally as possible about what we should choose to do (and not to do), considering our whole life as a field of opportunity (or misuse of opportunity). Thinking not merely our own opportunities, but the kinds of good things that any human being can do and achieve, or be deprived of.

What law and whose law do we obey - Jesus said something about giving unto Ceasar...

Moral Principle is using our judgement to choice action in the face of temptations determined by our conscience.

Both Aristotle and Aquinas say, "...to direct one's choices and actions to bringing them about in the real people for whom one thereby makes effective one's love and respect." The lesson goes on to explain that Aquinas believes to affirm a moral principle as an effective loving and respectful action we must be loving and respectful to create a climate of willingness. Where as, Aristotle's Ethics says that the polis has the responsibility and role of coercively leading all its citizens, of every age, towards all-round virtue.

Law is simply the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties. Where as Moral Law is the rules of behavior an individual or a group may follow out of personal conscience that is not necessarily part of legislated law in the United States

Therefore the dilemma, how we even determine acting within the Law versus acting our Conscience the basis for Moral Principles - Examples what we would do in Nazi Germany if we knew a Jewish family lived next door or as you suggest if we lived fully 150 years ago and we knew of a run-away slave. What penalty are we willing to risk to break a law in favor of our conscience. What factors and moral principles do we see affected by our actions.

Interesting subject - Ethics and the Law.