“This isn't outrageous at all, seeing as a fact this article glossed over is that the couple in question is from California--which is in the middle of a tug-of-war battle as to their position on the matter. Yes, it sets a potential precedent--for another state that is in the middle of a tug-of-war battle over policy. It didn't say we should wait for all the states to make up their mind. It ruled on this issue in this state in this circumstance, and said that it would be prudent to allow the state to make up its mind first.
That's the problem with taking any single statement out of context and/or making it instantly universal--some facts get missed.
Also, same-sex couples go through the same sacrifice, support, juggling, and balancing act for each person to be supported in their roles in life as any other couple. The fight for benefits to be conferred on the partner has historically been based upon that argument, and if anything it holds more true in a case of same-gender couples, where regular bias gets heaped upon one or both. It doesn't strike me as at all inconsiderate or inconsistent to confer the same benefits to the same people going through the same issues, especially with the level of sacrifice typically required of any government position.”
“You act as though the president wrote the bill that went out that bailed out the banks. Congress did. You act as though the logic simply never happened to impose limitations. The president pushed some for it, but while some of congress brought it up, the rest of congress voted it down--viewed it as too pushy. Then, when the people they represent were now ticked off that it hadn't been done, suddenly they felt some impetus to through a fit. AFTER it had all been signed and shipped.
I think Mr. Gibbs has it wrong, I honestly do. But we can do something about it now, and hold the people who refused to stand by the common interest and instead stood up for the interests of big business accountable and make sure they are not reelected. We can encourage local business in our dealings. And we can make sure that the people who CAN do something about this stuff are held accountable, and don't just make it through using a figurehead like the president as a scapegoat when it was their decisions that made the situation.
Honestly, I think Mr. Gibbs' writer needs to be fired and Mr. Gibbs needs to be taken off the front lines until he figures out how to not make matters worse when he opens his mouth.”
“I nominate the president, Barack Obama, for his use of modern media in running for and fulfilling his role as president. Yes, he's had help--David Axelrod not least of all--but his integration of intention with technique is truly staggering. And effective. :)
I also nominate the website Care2 for their unbelievable wealth of information on health and also on promoting philanthropic causes and bringing them to common knowledge. They are amazing, informational, extensive, and inspiring. They are also my favorite newsletter and source of ecards. (And no, I'm not anything other than a raving fan. :) )”
“So are you saying something along the lines of "Who's to blame--the person with the idea or the people who go along with it"? That's a valid point, and realistically can't be answered by saying that one party simply stood in the way of the other. Plus, so much legislation really is a double-edged sword. I hate Wal-Mart--I really think it's setting an example that could wreck our economy--but if it went under my hometown would go under, too. Which evil do I want? Would that be considered hurting Main Street?
So which approach do you want? Which Main Street do you want to hurt? The one with the Washington Mutual bank that hires 300, or the one with the businesses that bank with Washington Mutual that hire 300? Or maybe that other one that owes Washington Mutual $3 million dollars?
Rather than discussing Republican this or Democrat that, rather than choosing sides in some battle, can't we just focus on keeping our country afloat, whatever business might be on Main Street? This solution seems passable in that it will solve something. And for whatever it's worth, it sounds like Hillary recognizes this, regardless of her party affiliations.”
“Because then McCain would never get around to ever saying anything, and Obama would take center stage, and McCain would then try to take the credit. Whereas in this scenario, McCain and Obama really do get something done, and you still have to deal with McCain trying to take the credit.”
“No, no, no! There's not an US and THEM on this one. We need the companies that feed America—through our credit cards, our mortgages, the retirement accounts invested with them—to keep feeding us. They #^*%ed up, yes, but so did we. We racked up credit card debt we couldn’t pay & bought houses we couldn’t afford, then defaulted on them. The debt had to go somewhere—and those companies, the ones holding our debt, are the ones going under. We can’t afford to just throw money anywhere right now—there has to be a standard, an agreement. The good thing about bailing out the companies is that we can tell them to pay it back, and to reward us for helping them. Bush has run this country like a corporate monster, but we have to clean up his messes before we can just move past them. This country is a business in that the money has to come from somewhere to go to somewhere. Save this country—feed the corporations that feed us, and force them to feed us in return and not just themselves. Make sure our heads are still above water as a country. Those corporations could take down hundreds of thousands of everyday folk—Main Street folk—if they can’t sign their pay checks. Don’t you see that?”