An article from the AP that doesn't cite any sources for their information and doesn't mention that almost every aspect of that federal health care law is being appealed by one or more states across the nation. It says an additional 260,000 persons in Missouri could be added to the Medicaid rolls "if" eligibility expands to the levels allowed under federal law. It doesn't say Missouri would need $1 billion more federal tax dollars for each of the first three years (read as: increasing the federal debt) which Missouri tax payers are going to ultimately end paying for through increased federal taxes. And that's just in Missouri .. imagine how much it will be for New York or California each year .. Encourage your state representative to just say "no" to adding more debt for your children and grandchildren to pay.
Damn if he didn't find a way to add another half billion to the federal deficit, instead of looking at what was already in place and not being done properly. Even if by some slim chance any of this was enacted into federal laws by Congress, they won't be properly enforced. They have only prosecuted a very small number of the individuals who lied on background checks. And let's collect more data - that's something the feds do well - more bean counters and analysts. Any grant money for school resource officers is going to peter out in a year or two when the dumbocrats decide they need more money for entitlement programs. Do you know anyone besides the Prez whose kids are protected at school by heavily armed Secret Service agents? What an elite pompous hypocrite.
It is not the right thing to do .. There are no free dollars there for Missouri or any state in the nation .. it's billions more being added to the federal debt to add more people to the entitlement programs .. The right answer would be "No we are not going to expand the Medicaid program while we are teetering on a fiscal cliff. We are going to take a close look at how we are spending our current Medicaid dollars; weeding out rampant fraud and unneeded services like paying relatives to take care of their relatives, misuse of ambulance and emergency room services, prescription fraud (selling their pills on the street) and the like". Missouri tax payers will ultimately end up paying for that "federal money" with higher federal taxes, lost deductions, etc. It's time for Gov. Nixon (D) to man up and politely decline to increase the federal debt.
I think that as long as the warrants could be approved by a judge by telephone it would be reasonable. You need to realize it is the Supreme Court and we are talking all 50 states here .. there are many places in the western states and Alaska where a law enforcement officer has to drive over an hour each way to get reach a judge. I think Judge Scalia's comment about a case by case basis would be more reasonable.
Is there is White Caucus? I wonder what the blacks would think if the whites formed a caucus to push their own white agenda? Just saying ,, I think it's the minorities that are actually the racists.
Expanding Medicaid is not the right and smart thing to do and it certainly doesn't improve the efficiency of state government to add more people to the entitlement rolls. Even though the expansion would be covered 100 percent by the federal government in the first three years, it's one billion or more federal tax dollars that are going to have to be borrowed against the federal debt and paid for in some form by Missouri citizens, most likely via increased federal income taxes. It's time for the governors and legislators in all 50 states to quit trying to increase entitlement programs and asking for more federal dollars.
On second reading, I think you are right and spelchek was not replying to my post .. I apologize for my over zealous response.
I've never heard anyone calling someone's ideology that the U.S. Constitution grants citizens certain unalienable rights dangerous, except when we are referring to an enemy. People like you that would take away those rights without due process might be dangerous. I see you skipped ripping out a portion of the 2nd Amendment and went right to wanting to take away someone else's 1st Amendment rights just because they don't agree with your warped sense of what's right or wrong. My stance on firearms is very clear to anyone who knows me personally or would have cause to come near my front lawn and I have an above average knowledge of the pros and cons of gun control (because I said so). So slither back to where you came from and we will let you off with a public admonishment this time.
In other words, make criminals out of law abiding citizens for exercising their second amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Then we can go after those pesky first amendment supporters. And maybe after that start working on the fifth amendment.
In an emergency, you are only going to have a couple seconds at most to protect yourself; not enough time to go get something from a secured location. I personally prefer the idea of a uniformed or plain clothes police officer, referred to as School Resource Officers, in each school. Many already have them and they are a great interface with the kids to see the positive side of law enforcement. They help the teachers and administrators with thefts, fights, abuse, etc.
Last login: Monday, January 28, 2013
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.