Is George Bush the right leader for America?

[shostakovich]

Oh, heck, Barfle, if you won't, I will.
Shos

[Shapley]

FEMA's website offers direct disaster assistance for individuals and families. Which sure looks like it means they're taking on the job.

FEMA has traditionally offered 'direct disaster assistance' in the from of low cost loans and temporary housing, both after-the-fact responses to distasters.

There was a cartoon floated around (no pun intended) during the aftermath to Hurricane Katrina. it showed a FEMA worker in a rowboat next to a family on the roof of their flooded home. The FEMA worker tells them "No, I can't rescue you. But here is the paperwork you'll need to fill out to get your disaster loan." It was an accurate representation of the roll of FEMA.

[BigJon@Work]

Don't forget that when you see "cost" estimates of the bailout, they are worst-case scenarios of a comprehensive financial disaster of unimaginable breadth occurring in the next few years. The actual costs will only be determined when we see how much of the money is repaid to the Feds. The net cost could end up being very much lower.

[Haggis@wk]

Don't forget that when you see "cost" estimates of the bailout, they are worst-case scenarios of a comprehensive financial disaster of unimaginable breadth occurring in the next few years. The actual costs will only be determined when we see how much of the money is repaid to the Feds. The net cost could end up being very much lower.

Please name one government program that ever came in under budget? The sad truth is the bailout will cost much more than any of us can predict. The measure is an economic sham.

First, if the bill is paid with a blizzard of freshly printed greenbacks, it will invariably lead to galloping inflation, which, of course, destroys everybody’s wealth.

If the funds are borrowed, the government will not only be setting the stage for inflation, but it will also be increasing the national debt and constricting credit.

As multiple studies have shown, government spending has little stimulative value.

One of those studies was done by Obama’s new chief economic advisor, Christina Romer of UC Berkeley, who found $3 in increased Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for every $1 in tax cuts.

Odds are Obama will eventually rue the day he signed off on this sham.

[Shapley]

The original Chrysler Bailout cost us nothing, since the loan was repaid with interest. However, that bailout was offered in response to a credible plan for restructuring and was offered at a time when there was market share available for Chrysler to recoup. Currently, sales are down across the board. The main problem isn't that people aren't buying cars from the 'big three', it's that people aren't buying cars. The bailout won't fix that.

[jamiebk]

Fortunately, Obama is eyeing a tax cut at this time for the middle class that should provide some relief to this most affected traunch of our population.

[BigJon@Work]

Don't forget that when you see "cost" estimates of the bailout, they are worst-case scenarios of a comprehensive financial disaster of unimaginable breadth occurring in the next few years. The actual costs will only be determined when we see how much of the money is repaid to the Feds. The net cost could end up being very much lower.

Please name one government program that ever came in under budget? The sad truth is the bailout will cost much more than any of us can predict. The measure is an economic sham.

First, if the bill is paid with a blizzard of freshly printed greenbacks, it will invariably lead to galloping inflation, which, of course, destroys everybody’s wealth.

If the funds are borrowed, the government will not only be setting the stage for inflation, but it will also be increasing the national debt and constricting credit.

As multiple studies have shown, government spending has little stimulative value.

One of those studies was done by Obama’s new chief economic advisor, Christina Romer of UC Berkeley, who found $3 in increased Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for every $1 in tax cuts.

Odds are Obama will eventually rue the day he signed off on this sham.

I thought you only twisted OT's posts to turn them into preaching opps.

[Haggis@wk]

I thought you only twisted OT's posts to turn them into preaching opps.

Nah. While his are easier I try to be a equal opportunity pouncer.

[Shapley]

President Obama Faces Hurdles in Reversing President Bush Regulations

Almost immediately after Obama took the oath of office Tuesday, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel sent a memorandum to all agencies and departments, directing them to stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the new administration.

But Obama's inauguration came too late to stop some of Bush's most controversial regulations from being finalized.

"They were very successful at getting these controversial rules finalized before Jan. 20," said Rick Melberth, director of regulatory policy for OMB Watch. "This Emanuel memo doesn't deal with any of those."

It's unclear how many rules and regulations the Emanuel memo applies to, but it could be hundreds, Melberth said.

The Bush administration worked diligently to get its changes in place before Obama took over, moving into overdrive in the last year on a host of new regulatory proposals. In some instances, Bush advisers put the finishing touches on proposals in time to have them passed one day before Obama's inauguration -- federal law requires a 60-day waiting period before any major changes become law.

Those rules included a "right of conscience" law that allows medical providers to refuse to offer any practice they find morally objectionable, including abortion and other reproductive-health procedures.

Another regulation overturned a 25-year-old federal rule that severely restricted loaded firearms in national parks.

This, of course, has become a tradition of sorts. President's push these type of regulations through at the last hour in order to put measures in place that may be politically unpopular, or to protect measures that are threatened by their successors' political positions, as the 'right of conscience' does. President Bush caught a lot of flack for stopping one of President Clinton's, the revision of Arsenic standards. He reinstated that rule after review, but was liberal websties continued to blast him for 'increasing the allowable level of Arsenic in the water, even though that never really happened.

[shostakovich]

How did the "right of conscience" law get passed? Was it buried in a bill to raise the wages of Congress? GHAAA!
Shos

[Haggis@wk]

How did the "right of conscience" law get passed? Was it buried in a bill to raise the wages of Congress? GHAAA!
Shos

Don't worry Shos, it's "just" an Executive Order and has already been halted. Apparently Obama won't need any "conscience" the next four years

[shostakovich]

Thanks, Haggis. I feel much better now.
Shos

[Shapley]

Don't worry Shos, it's "just" an Executive Order and has already been halted. Apparently Obama won't need any "conscience" the next four years

I don't think it was halted. Only those executive orders that were passed less than 60 days ago were halted by President Obama's actions. The rest have to be undone through the legal process. I believe the 'right of conscience' made the deadline.

I'm curious as to why so many people believe that 'freedom of choice' shouldn't include letting doctors and hospital staff that are opposed to abortion choose not to perform them.

[barfle]

I'm curious as to why so many people believe that 'freedom of choice' shouldn't include letting doctors and hospital staff that are opposed to abortion choose not to perform them.

I'm curious about why someone would go into a field where they might have to do something that they feel is wrong. As far as I know, podiatrists are MDs, but they don't perform abortions.

[Shapley]

I'm curious as to why so many people believe that 'freedom of choice' shouldn't include letting doctors and hospital staff that are opposed to abortion choose not to perform them.

I'm curious about why someone would go into a field where they might have to do something that they feel is wrong. As far as I know, podiatrists are MDs, but they don't perform abortions.

Catholic hospitals have been caring for people for centuries, and Catholics have been doctors and surgeons for probably even longer. As a policy, they have adhered to the admonition primum non nocere (First, do no harm). For Catholics, the termination of a fetus is harm.

I can understand why one would want to enter a profession devoted to helping humanity and saving lives. When the government begins to order those professionals to start taking lives as a part of their duties, however, it is time to rethink, not the role of the profession, but the role of the government. A 'right of conscience' at least protects one from having to engage in civil disobedience in order to practice the healing arts without moral conflict.

Is the kiling of babies so important that we cannot allow those who find it morally repugnant to 'opt out' without abandoning their careers?

[Haggis@wk]

I think we are talking about two issues here. The "'right of conscience' E.O. is primarily aimed (I think) at individuals while the "Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is aimed at institutions that currently have legal protection in place that allow them to decline to perform "certain procedures" i.e. abortions.

46 states have laws that permit hospitals (mainly Catholic ones) to decline to perform procedures that are counter to the hospitals' goals and founding principals even while receiving Medicare/Medicaid payments

The FOCA is the "nuclear option" that wipes away all those laws and essentially codifies Roe v. Wade.

Obama has sworn publically that the first thing he would do as president would be to sign the act as soon as it hits his desk.

All the Catholic hospitals in the U.S. (about a third) have vowed they will close before they will perform abortions. They also vow they will shutter those hospitals rather than sell them because that would constitute "material cooperation with an intrinsic evil." Although the U.S. government's getting rather bold about nationalizing institutions, I don't think that action would pass a Supreme Court, even packed with Obama Justices.

I suspect that President Obama is regretting Candidate Obama's rash promises and I would not be suprised to see him working in the background to make sure FOCA doesn't "hit his desk."

He has grand hopes of Socializing health care; I don't think closing a third of all hospitals and laying off a third of all health care workers in the U.S. would be the first step he would take in that endeavor.

[Shapley]

They are two seperate issues, yet they are linked. It will be an empty victory to require that Catholic hospitals perform abortions if those hospitals are all staffed with physicians that can opt out of performing them.

Granted, this will not happen, since not all physicians (in fact, probably not a majority of physicians) in Catholic hospitals are Catholic. One can only guess as to what percentage of physicians would decline performing abortions through conscientious objector status.

[Haggis@wk]

They are two seperate issues, yet they are linked. It will be an empty victory to require that Catholic hospitals perform abortions if those hospitals are all staffed with physicians that can opt out of performing them.

Granted, this will not happen, since not all physicians (in fact, probably not a majority of physicians) in Catholic hospitals are Catholic. One can only guess as to what percentage of physicians would decline performing abortions through conscientious objector status.

I'm not sure what your point is (too early for me). the MRHYN worked Labor & Delivery at a Catholic hospital in Sou. Cal. They had a nun RN who reviewed all proposed procedures in L&D to make sure they didn't violate the tenates of the church. Things like tubal ligation were definitely a "no-no"

[Shapley]

I'm not sure what your point is (too early for me). the MRHYN worked Labor & Delivery at a Catholic hospital in Sou. Cal. They had a nun RN who reviewed all proposed procedures in L&D to make sure they didn't violate the tenates of the church. Things like tubal ligation were definitely a "no-no"

My point, and I believe the intent of President Bush' efforts, is that FOCA will mandate that Catholic (and other) hospitals can no longer refuse to provice such services if they remain in operation. However, they cannot mandate that the staff perform such services, if they exercise their right of conscience. Thus, women wanting to receive such services will have to bring their own staff to perform them, theoretically, at least.

Too early for you? I thought you were a morning person...

[Haggis@wk]

I'm not sure what your point is (too early for me). the MRHYN worked Labor & Delivery at a Catholic hospital in Sou. Cal. They had a nun RN who reviewed all proposed procedures in L&D to make sure they didn't violate the tenates of the church. Things like tubal ligation were definitely a "no-no"

My point, and I believe the intent of President Bush' efforts, is that FOCA will mandate that Catholic (and other) hospitals can no longer refuse to provice such services if they remain in operation. However, they cannot mandate that the staff perform such services, if they exercise their right of conscience. Thus, women wanting to receive such services will have to bring their own staff to perform them, theoretically, at least.

Too early for you? I thought you were a morning person...

I'm a morning person, just not a bright morning person
The "hammer" to FOCA is the withholding of Medicare/Medicaid payments if those hospitals refuse to perform abortions regardless if it is a refusal by the hospital management or the staff. Without those payments the hospitals can't remain open.

Unfortunately, politicians like Barbara Boxer believe that everything is negotiable. Since she and those like her (apparently) have no core beliefs that they aren't willing to negotiate away, they believe the hospitals and staff likewise are going to negotiate and therefore assume the Catholics threat to close and shutter those hospitals is merely an opening ploy in negotiations, not what it actually is, a statement of fact.

I suspect that is an unrecognized weakness for people who have never had or have abjured faith. They simply can not conceive that anyone would sacrifice their own well-being and jobs for (to them) an ethereal concept.