Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Nov 24th 2012 new

(Quote) Gustavo-764558 said: Amen! One abortion is indeed one too many. My point is I cannot support a candidate so...
(Quote) Gustavo-764558 said:

Amen! One abortion is indeed one too many.

My point is I cannot support a candidate solely on one issue which we agree. Which is why, in good conscience I don't participate in Walk for Life.

Only a small percentage of the pop. has an abortion. I believe 3,000/day in a country with a pop. of 300 million.
--hide--



Abortion is not an issue and actually Obama supports killing a baby even after it is born alive...he voted 3 times for a bill to do this.

The Catholic faith has been infiltrated now for quite a while by liberals who still call themselves Catholic to cause scandal and bring down the faith....no one really Catholic should have voted for a man who believes it is ok to kill babies in the womb much less when they are already born by leaving them to suffer alone in a room till they die from lack of food and water and care....I wonder how many proabortionist or proabortionist supporters there would be if we did this to them....let them suffer and die in a room by themselves....I guess that is more humane then the actual abortions where they burn them with acid or put a needle in their head. Abortion is NOT an issue...it is murder and your numbers are WRONG...far more babies are aborted then this....there was a story recently about a Kansas abortion clinic that throws the babies in the dumpsters with the euthanized dogs and cats by the dozens daily....that must be after they got the body parts they wanted to sell....sounds bad enough to be in a horror movie yet really happening.

Nov 25th 2012 new

What happened to the Benghazi investigation? I haven't heard anything about it on the news as of late. He is going to get away with it like Fast and Furious, isn't he?

Nov 25th 2012 new
(Quote) Patricia-29176 said: Part II closed out and there was a request to continue this thread - so here it is!
(Quote) Patricia-29176 said:

Part II closed out and there was a request to continue this thread - so here it is!

--hide--


We get America back the same way Europe returns. There is a dire need to retirn to God by the people of this world!
Nov 26th 2012 new
Obama ran his campaign on Forward, not on Change this time.

This is an article from Sheila Liaugminas' blog that I thought you would find interesting to read.

Forward?

So now that President Obama has won another four years to fundamentally transform America as he promised in 2008, running to retain that office on the simple premise that he wanted to go forward, the question which should have been answered in the campaign but wasn’t even asked, now looms: To where and what are we headed?

To some knowledgeable analysts,it looksa whole lot like backwards.

Will 2013 be 1937? This is the question many analysts are posing as the stock market has dropped after the U.S. election. On Nov. 16, they noted that industrial production, a crucial figure, dropped as well.

In this case, “1937” means a market drop similar to the one after the re-election of another Democratic president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1936.

The drop wasn’t immediate in that case; it came in the first full year after the election. Industrial production plummeted by 34.5 percent. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped by half, from almost 200 in early 1937 to less than 100 at the end of March 1938.

It’s hard to imagine stock indexes dropping by half today, or unemployment rising past 15 percent, as they did in the “depression within the Depression.” But the parallels are visible enough to be worth tracing. They have to do with the danger of big government, and can be captured in a few categories.

Amity Shlaes neatly lines them up:

– Pre-election spree that sets records. In the old days, federal spending amounted to about 19 percent or 19.5 percent of gross domestic product. That ratio was so reliable that economists took it as a given, the American normal, from which divergence was unnatural and temporary. By the old 19 percent rule, federal spending would have dropped back once the worst of the 2008 economic crisis passed.

That didn’t happen. Instead the federal government continued to spend. Most important, even in 2012, when the crisis was long past, the government went on a spree, spending the equivalent of 24.3 percent of the economy, more than the 24.1 percent for the year earlier…

– Bath of cold water afterward. After this year’s election, President Barack Obama made it clear that budgeting was his priority: “I’m ready and willing to make big commitments to make sure that we’re locking in the kind of deficit reductions that stabilize our deficit, start bringing it down, start bringing down our debt. I’m confident we can do it.”

Roosevelt too opened his second term on a sober budget- cutting note. The president, wrote journalist Anne O’Hare McCormick in 1937, was like “the Dutch householder who carefully totes up his accounts every month and who is really annoyed now that he is bent on balancing the budget, that Congress can’t stop spending.”

– Fearsome attack on the status quo. In his first news conference on Nov. 14, Obama went out of his way to make clear his tax increases would fall on the rich: “What I’m concerned about is not finding ourselves in a situation where the wealthy aren’t paying more or aren’t paying as much as they should.”

Roosevelt was also ferocious, telling the old guard: “I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master.”

When Roosevelt followed through in 1937, both with high taxes and his effort to pack the Supreme Court with more progressives, markets shivered.

– Fallout from first-term legislation. Obama signed his health-care act in 2010, postponing much of its enforcement until 2013, after the election. Now that the effects of the act are so proximate, markets are wondering whether they or investors can handle the changes demanded.

That’s looking doubtful, as WaPo captures pretty wellhere.

After surviving a Supreme Court decision and a presidential election, the Obama administration’s health-care law faces another challenge: a public largely unaware of major changes that will roll out in the coming months.

States are rushing to decide whether to build their own health exchanges and the administration is readying final regulations, but a growing body of research suggests that most low-income Americans who will become eligible for subsidized insurance have no idea what’s coming.

Part of the problem, experts say, is that people who will be affected don’t realize the urgency because the subsidies won’t begin for another year. But policy decisions are being made now that will affect tens of millions of Americans, and the lack of public awareness could jeopardize a system that depends on having many people involved. Low enrollment could lead to higher premiums, health policy experts say. Hospitals worry that, without widespread participation, they will continue getting stuck with patients’ unpaid medical bills. And advocates say the major purpose of the Affordable Care Act – extending health insurance to more Americans – will go unmet if large numbers of vulnerable people don’t take advantage of it.

It’s a mess, actually.

Even though the subsidies for currently uninsured people won’t go out until Jan. 1, 2014, the state exchanges that will offer health plans are being set up now, and participants will need to start signing up next Oct. 1. Supporters of the health-care law say the plan won’t be a success without a massive public relations campaign to build awareness.

“That part is a going to be a real challenge,” said Rich Umbdenstock, president of the American Hospital Association, one of Enroll America’s funders. “If we want to see high enrollment achieved, we have to figure out how to get the word out.”

Work with the Obama re-election team. They managed to convince a slight majority of voters that he cared about them and would provide for their needs. Time to deliver, because a whole lot of people don’t really know what lies ahead.

Nov 26th 2012 new

(Quote) Denise-687929 said: Obama ran his campaign on Forward, not on Change this time.This is an article from Sheila Liaug...
(Quote) Denise-687929 said: Obama ran his campaign on Forward, not on Change this time.

This is an article from Sheila Liaugminas' blog that I thought you would find interesting to read.

Forward?

So now that President Obama has won another four years to fundamentally transform America as he promised in 2008, running to retain that office on the simple premise that he wanted to go forward, the question which should have been answered in the campaign but wasn’t even asked, now looms: To where and what are we headed?

To some knowledgeable analysts,it looksa whole lot like backwards.

Will 2013 be 1937? This is the question many analysts are posing as the stock market has dropped after the U.S. election. On Nov. 16, they noted that industrial production, a crucial figure, dropped as well.

In this case, “1937” means a market drop similar to the one after the re-election of another Democratic president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1936.

The drop wasn’t immediate in that case; it came in the first full year after the election. Industrial production plummeted by 34.5 percent. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped by half, from almost 200 in early 1937 to less than 100 at the end of March 1938.

It’s hard to imagine stock indexes dropping by half today, or unemployment rising past 15 percent, as they did in the “depression within the Depression.” But the parallels are visible enough to be worth tracing. They have to do with the danger of big government, and can be captured in a few categories.

Amity Shlaes neatly lines them up:

– Pre-election spree that sets records. In the old days, federal spending amounted to about 19 percent or 19.5 percent of gross domestic product. That ratio was so reliable that economists took it as a given, the American normal, from which divergence was unnatural and temporary. By the old 19 percent rule, federal spending would have dropped back once the worst of the 2008 economic crisis passed.

That didn’t happen. Instead the federal government continued to spend. Most important, even in 2012, when the crisis was long past, the government went on a spree, spending the equivalent of 24.3 percent of the economy, more than the 24.1 percent for the year earlier…

– Bath of cold water afterward. After this year’s election, President Barack Obama made it clear that budgeting was his priority: “I’m ready and willing to make big commitments to make sure that we’re locking in the kind of deficit reductions that stabilize our deficit, start bringing it down, start bringing down our debt. I’m confident we can do it.”

Roosevelt too opened his second term on a sober budget- cutting note. The president, wrote journalist Anne O’Hare McCormick in 1937, was like “the Dutch householder who carefully totes up his accounts every month and who is really annoyed now that he is bent on balancing the budget, that Congress can’t stop spending.”

– Fearsome attack on the status quo. In his first news conference on Nov. 14, Obama went out of his way to make clear his tax increases would fall on the rich: “What I’m concerned about is not finding ourselves in a situation where the wealthy aren’t paying more or aren’t paying as much as they should.”

Roosevelt was also ferocious, telling the old guard: “I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master.”

When Roosevelt followed through in 1937, both with high taxes and his effort to pack the Supreme Court with more progressives, markets shivered.

– Fallout from first-term legislation. Obama signed his health-care act in 2010, postponing much of its enforcement until 2013, after the election. Now that the effects of the act are so proximate, markets are wondering whether they or investors can handle the changes demanded.

That’s looking doubtful, as WaPo captures pretty wellhere.

After surviving a Supreme Court decision and a presidential election, the Obama administration’s health-care law faces another challenge: a public largely unaware of major changes that will roll out in the coming months.

States are rushing to decide whether to build their own health exchanges and the administration is readying final regulations, but a growing body of research suggests that most low-income Americans who will become eligible for subsidized insurance have no idea what’s coming.

Part of the problem, experts say, is that people who will be affected don’t realize the urgency because the subsidies won’t begin for another year. But policy decisions are being made now that will affect tens of millions of Americans, and the lack of public awareness could jeopardize a system that depends on having many people involved. Low enrollment could lead to higher premiums, health policy experts say. Hospitals worry that, without widespread participation, they will continue getting stuck with patients’ unpaid medical bills. And advocates say the major purpose of the Affordable Care Act – extending health insurance to more Americans – will go unmet if large numbers of vulnerable people don’t take advantage of it.

It’s a mess, actually.

Even though the subsidies for currently uninsured people won’t go out until Jan. 1, 2014, the state exchanges that will offer health plans are being set up now, and participants will need to start signing up next Oct. 1. Supporters of the health-care law say the plan won’t be a success without a massive public relations campaign to build awareness.

“That part is a going to be a real challenge,” said Rich Umbdenstock, president of the American Hospital Association, one of Enroll America’s funders. “If we want to see high enrollment achieved, we have to figure out how to get the word out.”

Work with the Obama re-election team. They managed to convince a slight majority of voters that he cared about them and would provide for their needs. Time to deliver, because a whole lot of people don’t really know what lies ahead.

--hide--


Thank you, Denise. I found that useful.

Nov 26th 2012 new

Your welcome John.

Nov 26th 2012 new
(Quote) Denise-687929 said: Obama ran his campaign on Forward, not on Change this time.This is an article from Sheila Liaugminas'...
(Quote) Denise-687929 said: Obama ran his campaign on Forward, not on Change this time.

This is an article from Sheila Liaugminas' blog that I thought you would find interesting to read.

Forward?

So now that President Obama has won another four years to fundamentally transform America as he promised in 2008, running to retain that office on the simple premise that he wanted to go forward, the question which should have been answered in the campaign but wasn’t even asked, now looms: To where and what are we headed?

To some knowledgeable analysts,it looksa whole lot like backwards.



Will 2013 be 1937? This is the question many analysts are posing as the stock market has dropped after the U.S. election. On Nov. 16, they noted that industrial production, a crucial figure, dropped as well.



In this case, “1937” means a market drop similar to the one after the re-election of another Democratic president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1936.



The drop wasn’t immediate in that case; it came in the first full year after the election. Industrial production plummeted by 34.5 percent. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped by half, from almost 200 in early 1937 to less than 100 at the end of March 1938.



It’s hard to imagine stock indexes dropping by half today, or unemployment rising past 15 percent, as they did in the “depression within the Depression.” But the parallels are visible enough to be worth tracing. They have to do with the danger of big government, and can be captured in a few categories.



Amity Shlaes neatly lines them up:



– Pre-election spree that sets records. In the old days, federal spending amounted to about 19 percent or 19.5 percent of gross domestic product. That ratio was so reliable that economists took it as a given, the American normal, from which divergence was unnatural and temporary. By the old 19 percent rule, federal spending would have dropped back once the worst of the 2008 economic crisis passed.



That didn’t happen. Instead the federal government continued to spend. Most important, even in 2012, when the crisis was long past, the government went on a spree, spending the equivalent of 24.3 percent of the economy, more than the 24.1 percent for the year earlier…



– Bath of cold water afterward. After this year’s election, President Barack Obama made it clear that budgeting was his priority: “I’m ready and willing to make big commitments to make sure that we’re locking in the kind of deficit reductions that stabilize our deficit, start bringing it down, start bringing down our debt. I’m confident we can do it.”



Roosevelt too opened his second term on a sober budget- cutting note. The president, wrote journalist Anne O’Hare McCormick in 1937, was like “the Dutch householder who carefully totes up his accounts every month and who is really annoyed now that he is bent on balancing the budget, that Congress can’t stop spending.”



– Fearsome attack on the status quo. In his first news conference on Nov. 14, Obama went out of his way to make clear his tax increases would fall on the rich: “What I’m concerned about is not finding ourselves in a situation where the wealthy aren’t paying more or aren’t paying as much as they should.”



Roosevelt was also ferocious, telling the old guard: “I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master.”



When Roosevelt followed through in 1937, both with high taxes and his effort to pack the Supreme Court with more progressives, markets shivered.



– Fallout from first-term legislation. Obama signed his health-care act in 2010, postponing much of its enforcement until 2013, after the election. Now that the effects of the act are so proximate, markets are wondering whether they or investors can handle the changes demanded.



That’s looking doubtful, as WaPo captures pretty wellhere.



After surviving a Supreme Court decision and a presidential election, the Obama administration’s health-care law faces another challenge: a public largely unaware of major changes that will roll out in the coming months.



States are rushing to decide whether to build their own health exchanges and the administration is readying final regulations, but a growing body of research suggests that most low-income Americans who will become eligible for subsidized insurance have no idea what’s coming.



Part of the problem, experts say, is that people who will be affected don’t realize the urgency because the subsidies won’t begin for another year. But policy decisions are being made now that will affect tens of millions of Americans, and the lack of public awareness could jeopardize a system that depends on having many people involved. Low enrollment could lead to higher premiums, health policy experts say. Hospitals worry that, without widespread participation, they will continue getting stuck with patients’ unpaid medical bills. And advocates say the major purpose of the Affordable Care Act – extending health insurance to more Americans – will go unmet if large numbers of vulnerable people don’t take advantage of it.



It’s a mess, actually.



Even though the subsidies for currently uninsured people won’t go out until Jan. 1, 2014, the state exchanges that will offer health plans are being set up now, and participants will need to start signing up next Oct. 1. Supporters of the health-care law say the plan won’t be a success without a massive public relations campaign to build awareness.



“That part is a going to be a real challenge,” said Rich Umbdenstock, president of the American Hospital Association, one of Enroll America’s funders. “If we want to see high enrollment achieved, we have to figure out how to get the word out.”



Work with the Obama re-election team. They managed to convince a slight majority of voters that he cared about them and would provide for their needs. Time to deliver, because a whole lot of people don’t really know what lies ahead.

--hide--


At one point in the election Obama claimed Romney's economic policies are the same as the ones in 1920! Ever hear of the Roaring 20's? There was a great economic boom in the 20's that was snuffed out by FDR's policies of the 1930's!! Also in the 20's there was a population of morally educated people!
Nov 26th 2012 new

(Quote) Clair-6292 said: At one point in the election Obama claimed Romney's economic policies are the same as the ones...
(Quote) Clair-6292 said:

At one point in the election Obama claimed Romney's economic policies are the same as the ones in 1920! Ever hear of the Roaring 20's? There was a great economic boom in the 20's that was snuffed out by FDR's policies of the 1930's!! Also in the 20's there was a population of morally educated people!
--hide--


"...a population of morally educated people!" ?? Relatively speaking, perhaps. But the 1920s were also known for their decadence. I believe the Crash occurred in 1929, which was during Hoover's administration. FDR won in 1932.

Nov 26th 2012 new

(Quote) John-857142 said: "...a population of morally educated people!" ?? Relatively speaking, perha...
(Quote) John-857142 said:


"...a population of morally educated people!" ?? Relatively speaking, perhaps. But the 1920s were also known for their decadence. I believe the Crash occurred in 1929, which was during Hoover's administration. FDR won in 1932.

--hide--

That pattern of decadance followed by a crash and a powerful leader that centralizes the state occured in Germany at the same time, but there it was even worse in both ends.

Nov 26th 2012 new

(Quote) Karis-410918 said: Am not sure that I understand what the run on sentences above mean.......but we helpe...
(Quote) Karis-410918 said:




Am not sure that I understand what the run on sentences above mean.......but we helped recruit lots of Americans to vote for their rifgts. They voted, and they won....if you feel strongly about an issue you should do the same. And if you are politician and you constantly insult certain class of voters, you will lose! That is not difficult. to figure out!

--hide--
You just got to love it when someone complains about run on sentences and fails to spell check there own words??? Ha ha faint

Posts 171 - 180 of 198