House Committee Votes To Take Food Stamps Away From Millions Of Low-Income Americans


Today, the House Agriculture Committee approved the final version of the 2012 farm bill, complete with its draconian cuts for families struggling to put food on the table. The proposed bill cuts $35 billion from the federal food and nutrition budget, about $16.5 billion of which come from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — more commonly known as SNAP or food stamps.

The cuts work by eliminating “categorical eligibility,” which provides assistance to families whose assets or income put them slightly above the technical line for SNAP eligibility. Repealing categorical eligibility means that between two and three million Americans will lose access to food stamps and roughly 280,000 children will drop out of their automatic enrollment in the free lunch program at school. So the House bill has anti-hunger advocates up in arms:

With the economy being in such bad shape, depriving that many people of nutritional assistance is going to have a devastating effect,” said Eric Olsen, [Feeding Hunger]’s senior vice president of government relations and public policy.

One needs simply to look to the story of Dorothy Moon, a stay-at-home mother in Texas whodepends on food stamps to feed her six children while her male partner looks for new work, to understand Olsen’s point. Of course, some in the GOP want to ignore “sob stories” about the plight of people who struggle to put food on the table.

SNAP assistance saved five million American from poverty in 2010 and halved the number of children in poverty in 2011.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Married Cheaters May Soon Face Rejection.. Why?


Not that every married couple cheats, but there are those select people out there who are unhappy with their marriage,  or just not satisfied with only committing themselves to one person even though they strapped on the ol’ ball and chain.

Most women that cheat with a married man often don’t know he’s married,  Then again, Some women know he’s married, and continue on with the affair in hopes of him leaving his wife.  Note:: Those are the ones to watch out for:::

What about those women that find out the man is married by finding his wedding ring in his pants pocket while he is passed out cold in bed?  Have you heard that joke?  It goes something like this…

A man went to the hospital to have his wedding ring cut off from his penis. 

According to the nurse attending, the patient’s girl friend found the ring in his pants pocket and she got so mad at him, she used petroleum jelly to slip the ring on his penis while he was asleep. 

I don’t know what’s worse: 
1) Having your girl friend find out you’re married.
2) Explaining to your wife how your wedding ring got on your penis.
3) Or finding out your penis fits through your wedding ring.

Well, according to Cheeky.com there may be a cure to the common cheater called the Anti-Cheater Ring..  Heres the story I found…. Continue reading

Posted in Cheating | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama: Supreme Court ruling on health care a victory for all Americans


Washington (CNN) – In a landmark ruling that will impact the November election and the lives of every American, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the controversial health care law championed by President Barack Obama.

The narrow 5-4 ruling was a victory for Obama but also will serve as a rallying issue for Republicans calling for repeal of the Affordable Care Act passed by Democrats in 2010.

An administration official described the White House reaction as elation, while GOP opponents criticized the high court’s reasoning and promised an immediate repeal effort.

“Today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives are more secure because of this law,” Obama said in a televised White House statement.

Photos: Health care and the high courtPhotos: Health care and the high court

Certain Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s campaign reported a fund-raising spike of $300,000 just after the high court’s decision was announced, and Romney said defeating Obama in November is the only way to get rid of the law despised by conservatives as a costly expansion of government.

Thursday’s decision impacts how Americans get medicine and health care, and also provides new court guidelines on federal power.

The most anticipated Supreme Court ruling in years allows the government to continue implementing the health care law, which doesn’t take full effect until 2014. That means popular provisions that prohibit insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions and allow parents to keep their children on family policies to the age of 26 will continue.

What the health care ruling means to you

In the ruling, the high court decided the most controversial provision — the individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance — is valid as a tax, even though it is impermissible under the Constitution’s commerce clause.

“In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

He later added: “The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. … The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.”

Read the court ruling (.PDF)

Roberts joined the high court’s liberal wing — Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in upholding the law. Four conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas — dissented.

“To say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it,” Scalia said in dissent. “Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.”

The polarizing law, dubbed “Obamacare” by many, is the signature legislation of Obama’s time in office.

It helped spur the creation of the conservative tea party movement and will be a centerpiece of the presidential election campaign.

Romney called Obamacare bad policy and a bad law, adding that defeating Obama in November is the only way to get rid of it.

“What the court did not do in its last session, I will do on the first day if elected president of the United States, and that’s to repeal Obamacare,” he said Thursday after the court’s decision was announced.

Obama used the focus on the issue to spell out the benefits of the law that remains unpopular with many Americans. The principle upheld by the high court’s ruling is that no American should go bankrupt because of illness, the president said.

Ruling plays into campaign narrative for both sides

“I know the debate over this law has been divisive,” Obama said. “It should be pretty clear that I didn’t do this because it was good politics. I did it because I believe it is good for the country.”

He said the country can’t afford to “to refight the political battle of two years ago or go back to the way things were.”

Other Democrats celebrated the policy victory.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who helped push through the law when she was House speaker, cited the late Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, a longtime proponent of health care reform who died before the bill became law.

“Now he can rest in peace,” Pelosi told reporters, echoing an earlier phone call she made to Kennedy’s widow.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former White House chief of staff, called it a “historic day.”

“The president had the courage to bend the needle of history and did something presidents have tried to do for 60 years,” Emanuel said of broadening health care accessibility.

In his opinion, Roberts appeared to note the political divisions of the health care law, writing that “we do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies.”

“That judgment is entrusted to the nation’s elected leaders,” the opinion said. “We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.”

The narrow focus of the ruling on key issues such as the individual mandate — limiting it to taxing powers rather than general commerce — represented the court’s effort to limit the government’s authority.

“The framers created a federal government of limited powers and assigned to this court the duty of enforcing those limits,” Roberts wrote. “The court does so today.”

The real people behind health care reform

On the individual mandate, the opinion said that “the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax.”

“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” Roberts wrote.

Republicans immediately seized on the ruling to accuse Obama of lying to the American people when he said during the protracted political debate on the bill in 2009 that it wasn’t a tax.

In an interview with ABC, Obama said then that the various provisions of the health care law were intended to create an all-inclusive system, so that penalizing people who refused to join was not a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” Obama said, noting that “right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.”

Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a leading tea party voice against the health care law, complained that the ruling “means now for the first time in the history of the country, Congress can force Americans to purchase any product, any service.”

“This is truly a turning point in American history. We’ll never be the same way again,” Bachmann said, adding that “this is a more far-reaching decision than anyone had expected or imagined.”

Roberts, however, wrote in the majority opinion that Congress exercised an authority it held to assess a tax, rather than create any new taxing authority.

Opinion: A health care victory that’s only a start

In another part of Thursday’s decision, the high court ruled that a part of the law involving Medicaid must change.

The law calls for an expansion of eligibility for Medicaid, which involves spending by the federal government and the states, and threatens to remove existing Medicaid funding from states that don’t participate in the expansion. Thursday’s ruling said the government must remove that threat.

Several groups that follow the health care law closely said they were keeping an eye on the potential impact of the Medicaid ruling.

In his remarks, Obama acknowledged a need to improve those parts of the health care law that need it.

According to a poll released Tuesday, 37% of Americans said they would be pleased if the health care law were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Opinion: Liberty lost? The Supreme Court punts

Twenty-eight percent said they would be pleased if the Affordable Care Act were ruled constitutional, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey showed, compared with 35% who said they would be disappointed if the court came back with that outcome.

But nearly four in 10 Americans surveyed said they would have “mixed feelings” if the justices struck down the whole law. The survey of 1,000 adults was conducted June 20-24.

Previous surveys have indicated that some who oppose the law do so because they think it doesn’t go far enough.

The Supreme Court heard three days of politically charged hearings in March on the law formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The landmark but controversial measure was passed by congressional Democrats despite pitched Republican opposition.

The challenge focused primarily on the law’s requirement that most Americans have health insurance or pay a fine.

Opinion: Aging boomers need health care law

Supporters of the plan argued the “individual mandate” is necessary for the system to work, while critics argued it is an unconstitutional intrusion on individual freedom.

Four federal appeals courts heard challenges to parts of the law before the Supreme Court ruling, and came up with three different results.

Courts in Cincinnati and Washington voted to uphold the law, while the appeals court in Atlanta struck down the individual mandate.

A fourth panel, in Richmond, Virginia, put its decision off until penalties for failing to have health insurance take effect in 2014.

How the Supreme Court justices voted, what they wrote

The act passed Congress along strictly partisan lines in March 2010, after a lengthy and heated debate marked by intense opposition from the health insurance industry and conservative groups.

When Obama signed the legislation later that month, he called it historic and said it marked a “new season in America.”

While it was not the comprehensive national health care system liberals initially sought, supporters said the law would reduce health care costs, expand coverage and protect consumers.

In place of creating a national health system, the law bans insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, bars insurers from setting a dollar limit on health coverage payouts, and requires them to cover preventative care at no additional cost to consumers.

Breaking down the court’s decision

It also requires individuals to have health insurance, either through their employers or a state-sponsored exchange, or face a fine beginning in 2014. There are, however, a number of exemptions. For instance, the penalty will be waived for people with very low incomes who are members of certain religious groups, or who face insurance premiums that would exceed 8% of family income even after including employer contributions and federal subsidies.

Supporters argued the individual mandate is critical to the success of the legislation, because it expands the pool of people paying for insurance and ensures that healthy people do not opt out of having insurance until they need it.

Critics say the provision gives the government too much power over what they say should be a personal economic decision.

Timeline of the health care law

Twenty-six states, led by Florida, went to court to say individuals cannot be forced to have insurance, a “product” they may neither want nor need. And they argued that if that provision is unconstitutional, the entire law must go.

The Justice Department countered that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not “choose” whether to participate in the health care market.

The partisan debate around such a sweeping piece of legislation has encompassed almost every traditional hot-button topic: abortion and contraception funding, state and individual rights, federal deficits, end-of-life care, and the overall economy.

During arguments on March 27, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the law appeared to “change the relationship between the government and the individual in a profound way.”

Roberts argued then that “all bets are off” when it comes to federal government authority if Congress was found to have the authority to regulate health care in the name of commerce.

Liberal justices, however, argued people who don’t pay into the health system by purchasing insurance make care more expensive for everyone. “It is not your free choice” to stay out of the market for life, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said during arguments.

Basics: Health care reform issues

The legislation signed by Obama stretched to 2,700 pages, nine major sections and some 450 provisions.

The first lawsuits challenging the health care overhaul began just hours after the president signed the measure

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ObamaCare Repeal?


Nik_WCMA:

A Repeal to the Health care law to take place soon after its been upheld? Is there possibly light at the end of the tunnel? Is there someone, somewhere who is trying to shine light up Obamas ass? Lets hope. Read more about this repeal at Phoebes Detention Room. —Nick from WCMA2

Originally posted on Phoebe's Detention Room:

By SEUNG MIN KIM|
6/28/12 11:02 AM EDT

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Thursday that the Republican-led House will vote on repealing the health care law soon after the July 4 recess.

Cantor, who sets the floor schedule in the House, said in a statement that the House will vote on the repeal the week of July 9 – which Cantor said will clear the path for “patient-centered reforms that lower costs and increase choice.”

(PHOTOS: 21 landmark SCOTUS rulings)

“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold ObamaCare is a crushing blow to patients throughout the country,” Cantor said. “ObamaCare has failed to keep the President’s basic promise of allowing those who like their health care to keep it, while increasing costs and reducing access to quality care for patients.”

UPDATE: Cantor said in a follow-up Tweet that the vote will be July 11.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/cantor-house-will-vote-on-repeal-week-of-july-127555.html

View original

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Not Bath Salts? but Marijuana…Created a Zombie? What?


Rudy Eugene Toxicology Drug Tests No Bath SaltsIt wasn’t bath salts.

According to a full toxicology report released Wednesday afternoon by the Miami-Dade medical examiner, the only drug detected in the lifeless body ofinfamous Miami face-chewer Rudy Eugene was marijuana.

“The department’s toxicology laboratory has identified the active components of marijuana,” the medical examiner said in a statement, according to NBC Miami. “The laboratory has tested for but not detected any other street drugs, alcohol or prescription drugs…This includes cocaine, LSD, amphetamines (Extasy, Meth and others), phencyclidine (PCP or Angel Dust), heroin, oxycodone, Xanax, synthetic marijuana (Spice), and many other similar compounds.”

The medical examiner’s office had a second forensic toxicology lab confirm the absence of common ingredients of bath salts, a synthetic amphetamine cocktail blamed in several recent incidents that bear some similarity to Eugene’s attack.

“Within the limits of current technology by both laboratories,” stated the press release from Medical Examiner Dr. Bruce Hyma, “marijuana is the only drug identified in the body of Mr. Rudy Eugene.”

The report did not address previously reported autopsy findings of what appeared to be undigested pills in Eugene’s stomach, according to the Miami Herald, and an expert told the Associate Press marijuana alone was not likely to cause such an attack:

“The problem today is that there is an almost an infinite number of chemical substances out there that can trigger unusual behavior,” said Dr. Bruce Goldberger, Professor and Director of Toxicology at the University of Florida.Goldberger said that the medical examiner’s office in Miami is known for doing thorough work and that he’s confident they and the independent lab covered as much ground as possible. But it’s nearly impossible for toxicology testing to keep pace with new formulations of synthetic drugs.

“…The challenge today for the toxicology lab is to stay on top of these new chemicals and develop methodologies for them, but it’s very difficult and very expensive.” Goldberger said. “There is no one test or combination of tests that can detect every possible substance out there.”

 

The medical examiner’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Eugene, 31, was widely speculated to have been on some form of synthetic drugs or suffering a drug-induced psychosis the afternoon of May 26 when he stripped naked and brutally attacked homeless resident Ronald Poppo in broad daylight along Miami’s busy MacArthur Causeway, chewing and ripping off roughly half of the older man’s face.

A police officer responding to multiple 911 calls shot and killed Eugene as he crouched over Poppo, reportedly refusing to stop the gruesome assault by growling at the officer with Poppo’s flesh in his mouth.

The 18-minute attack and its aftermath were captured on surveillance video from the Miami Herald’s parking garage, but it is still unknown what prompted Eugene to commit such a horrific crime.

According to Local10, the former North Miami Beach High School football player was once diagnosed as schizophrenic after an arrest, but authorities are not sure if he ever sought treatment.

Records show Eugene had been arrested 8 times since the age of 16, including 4 instances involving marijuana. But though he was once accused of threatening to kill his mother, friends and family members alike say they never expected such violence from Eugene, who was participating in a Bible study, reading the Koran, and telling friends he wanted to stop smoking marijuana.

“There’s no answer for it, not really,” Eugene’s younger brother, Marckenson Charles, told the AP. “Anybody who knew him knows this wasn’t the person we knew him to be. Whatever triggered him, there is no answer for this.”

Poppo, meanwhile, is doing “well,” according to doctors at Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Ryder Trauma Center. The 65-year-old has lost one eye, is missing his nose, and faces a string of surgeries to repair his wounds and reconstruct his face.

“We have mental health professionals to help him with the coping, and he’s coping remarkably well,” said plastic surgeon Dr. Wrood Kassira.

This is a developing story.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Healthy Americans Vs Free America


I understand the concern about people all over the U.S. dieing at young ages and what not because of their diets consisting of unhealthy practices, such as the kind of food they eat, the amount, the stuff we drink, smoke and do..  But as Americans, living in the land of the free, shouldn’t we be able to eat and drink what ever the hell we want?

Seriously, NYC mayor Bloomberg has already managed already started the smoking ban in restaurants, bars, and other public locations, now, the ban on Soda pop?  I wonder how many times as a teenager he went to a 7-11 and got himself a Big Gulp?!  I seriously don’t see him getting re-elected now that more of the americans freedom is being yanked out from under them..  Here is an article I found on the case that will affect Coca-Cola, Pepsi and other soda companies…

According to the Associated Press, the health department of New York City (NYC) has proposed to limit the consumption of beverages like Coke, Dr Pepper and Pepsi in restaurants, movie theaters and other public places in order to address the growing concern of obesity in the city of New York.

The move has negatively impacted soda-makers like The Coca-Cola Company (KO - Analyst Report), Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (DPS - Analyst Report) and PepsiCo Inc. (PEP -Analyst Report).

As per the Associated Press, the proposed ban by the New York Health Department would apply only to sweetened drinks over 16 ounces that contain more than 25 calories per 8 ounces. This would seriously impact Coca-Cola, as a 12-ounce can of Coke has about 140 calories. However, this would not affect diet soda and any drink that contains at least 70% juice, or half milk or milk substitute.

The source also stated that any business in the city will have to pay $200 per inspection for not following the rules. However, the proposal requires the approval of the city’s Board of Health. Once approved, it would push the U.S. government to adopt similar measures.

In order to sustain in U.S. markets, beverage companies have introduced smaller packs which have less calorie-content. Pepsi introduced Pepsi Next early in 2012, which has about 60 calories than the regular ones which have 140 calories, whereas Dr Pepper launched “Dr Pepper Ten” last year, which has just 10 calories.

Coca-Cola had introduced a 7.5-ounce “mini-can” in 2009 and is also expected to roll-out its mid-calorie versions of Fanta and Sprite in selected cities over the near term. Moreover, the companies have started printing the total caloric content on the front of its beverages, in order to make consumers aware of their calorie intake.

Coca-Cola and its peers have been struggling in recent years as people in U.S. have increasingly become health-cautious and are shifting away from high-calorie soda beverages to bottled water and juice-based drinks. We therefore expect the beverage makers to look for opportunities in the emerging markets to remain profitable over the long term.

Read the full analyst report on KO

Read the full analyst report on DPS

Read the full analyst report on PEP

What are your thoughts on the ordeal? Leave your comments below and weigh in!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments